Mechanical Wear Fundamentals and Testing

This edition is expanded and updated from a portion of the first edition, Mechanical Wear Prediction and Prevention (Mar...

Author: Raymond G. Bayer

494 downloads 2866 Views 11MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

This edition is expanded and updated from a portion of the first edition, Mechanical Wear Prediction and Prevention (Marcel Dekker, 1994). The remaining material in the first edition has been expanded and updated for Engineering Design for Wear: Second Edition, Revised and Expanded (Marcel Dekker, 2004). Although great care has been taken to provide accurate and current information, neither the author(s) nor the publisher, nor anyone else associated with this publication, shall be liable for any loss, damage, or liability directly or indirectly caused or alleged to be caused by this book. The material contained herein is not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any specific situation. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN: 0-8247-4620-1 This book is printed on acid-free paper. Headquarters Marcel Dekker, Inc., 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, U.S.A. tel: 212-696-9000; fax: 212-685-4540 Distribution and Customer Service Marcel Dekker, Inc., Cimarron Road, Monticello, New York 12701, U.S.A. tel: 800-228-1160; fax: 845-796-1772 Eastern Hemisphere Distribution Marcel Dekker AG, Hutgasse 4, Postfach 812, CH-4001 Basel, Switzerland tel: 41-61-260-6300; fax: 41-61-260-6333 World Wide Web http:==www.dekker.com The publisher offers discounts on this book when ordered in bulk quantities. For more information, write to Special Sales=Professional Marketing at the headquarters address above. Copyright # 2004 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Neither this book nor any part may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Current printing (last digit): 10 9 8

7 6 5 4

3 2 1

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Copyright 2004 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

To my wife, Barbara


Preface It has been a decade since the first edition of this book was published. During that period important changes in the field of tribology have occurred. As a consultant I have also gained additional tribological experience in a wide range of industrial applications. It was thus decided to develop a second edition with the goal of incorporating this new information and additional experience into a more useful and current book, as well as clarifying and enhancing the original material. While doing this, the purpose and perspective of the first edition were to be maintained, namely, ‘‘to provide a general understanding . . . for the practicing engineer and designer . . . engineering perspective . . . ’’. As rewriting progressed it became clear that the greatly expanded text would develop into a much larger volume that the first. We therefore decided to divide the material into two volumes, while keeping the basic format and style. Essentially the first two parts of the original edition on the fundamentals of wear and wear testing are combined into a single volume, Mechanical Wear Fundamentals and Testing. The remaining two parts of the first edition, which focus on design approaches to wear and the resolution of wear problems, are the basis for a second volume, Engineering Design for Wear: Second Edition, Revised and Expanded. While a good deal of background material is the same as in the first edition, significant changes have been made. The most pervasive is the use of a new way of classifying wear mechanisms, which I have found to be useful in formulating approaches to industrial wear situations. As a result, Part A, Fundamentals, has been reorganized and rewritten to accommodate this new classification and to include additional material on wear mechanisms. The treatment of thermal and oxidative wear processes has been expanded, as well as the consideration of galling and fretting. The treatment of frictional heating is also expanded. A section on wear maps has been introduced. Additional wear tests are described in Part B, Testing, which has been expanded to include friction tests. The last two parts of the first edition are discussed in Engineering Design for Wear. Additional appendixes have been added, providing further information for use in engineering situations. These new appendixes include tables on threshold stress for galling and sliding wear relationships for different contact situations. A glossary of wear mechanisms has also been added. These books demonstrates the feasibility of designing for wear and using analytical approaches to describe wear in engineering situations, which has been my experience over the last 40 years. Raymond G. Bayer


Contents Preface Part A Fundamentals 1

Terminology and Classifications 1.1 Wear, Friction, and Lubrication 1.2 Wear Classifications

2

Wear Measures

3

Wear Mechanisms 3.1 Overview 3.2 Adhesive Mechanisms 3.3 Single-Cycle Deformation Mechanisms 3.4 Repeated-Cycle Deformation Mechanisms 3.5 Oxidative Wear Processes 3.6 Thermal Wear Processes 3.7 Tribofilm Wear Processes 3.8 Abrasive Wear 3.9 Wear Maps

4

Wear Behavior and Phenomena 4.1 General Behavior 4.2 Mechanism Trends 4.3 Tribosurfaces 4.4 Wear Transitions 4.5 Galling 4.6 Fretting


4.7 Macro, Micro, and Nano Tribology 5

Friction

6

Lubrication Part B Testing

7

Selection and Use of Wear Tests

8

Testing Methodology 8.1 General 8.2 Simulation 8.3 Control 8.4 Acceleration 8.5 Data Acquisition, Analysis, and Reporting 8.6 Friction Measurements in Wear Testing 8.7 Tribological Aspect Number

9

Wear Tests 9.1 Overview 9.2 Phenomenological Wear Tests 9.2.1 Dry Sand-Rubber Wheel Abrasion Test 9.2.2 Wet Sand-Rubber Wheel Abrasion Test 9.2.3 Slurry Abrasivity 9.2.4 Erosion by Solid Particle Impingement Using Gas Jets 9.2.5 Vibratory Cavitation Erosion Test 9.2.6 Block-on-Ring Wear Test Using Wear Volume 9.2.7 Crossed-Cylinder Wear Test 9.2.8 Pin-on-Disk Wear Test 9.2.9 Test for Galling Resistance 9.2.10 Rolling Wear Test 9.2.11 Reciprocating Pin-on-Flat Test (Oscillating Ball-Plane Test) 9.2.12 Drum Wear Test 9.2.13 Thrust Washer Test 9.2.14 Hostile Environment Ceramic Tests


9.2.15 Liquid Impingement Erosion Tests 9.2.16 Block-on-Ring Test for Plastics 9.2.17 Impact Wear Tests 9.2.18 Tests for Paint Films 9.2.19 Scratch Test 9.2.20 Wear Tests for Coatings 9.3 Operational Wear Tests 9.3.1 Jaw Crusher Gouging Abrasion Test 9.3.2 Cylindrical Abrasivity Test 9.3.3 Coin Wear Test 9.3.4 Test for Rolling with Misalignment 9.3.5 Bearing Tests 9.3.6 Brake Material Wear Tests 9.3.7 Engine Wear Tests 9.3.8 Tests for Glazing Coatings on Plastics 9.3.9 Drill Wear Tests 9.3.10 Seal Wear Tests 9.3.11 Wear Test for a Magnetic Sensor 10

Friction Tests

Glossary of Wear Mechanisms, Related Terms, and Phenomena Appendix–Galling Threshold Stress


1

Terminology and Classifications 1.1. WEAR, FRICTION, AND LUBRICATION A number of different definitions, which have varying degrees of completeness, rigor, and formalism, can be found for wear (1–6). However, for engineering purposes, the following definition is adequate and contains the essential elements. Wear is progressive damage to a surface caused by relative motion with respect to another substance. It is significant to consider what is implied and excluded by this. One key point is that wear is damage and it is not limited to loss of material from a surface. However, loss of material is definitely one way in which a part can experience wear. Another way included in this definition is by movement of material without loss of mass. An example of this would be the change in the geometry or dimension of a part as the result of plastic deformation, such as from repeated hammering. There is also a third mode implied, which is damage to a surface that does not result in mass loss or in dimensional changes. An example of this might be the development of a network of cracks in a surface. This type of damage might be of significance in applications where maintaining optical transparency is a prime engineering concern. Lens and aircraft windows are examples where this is an appropriate definition for wear. As will be shown in subsequent sections, the significant point is that wear is not simply limited to loss of material, which is often implied in some, particularly older, definitions of wear. While wear is not limited to loss of material, wear damage, if allowed to progress without limit, will result in material loss. The newer and more inclusive definitions of wear are very natural to the design or device engineer, who thinks of wear in terms of a progressive change to a part that adversely affects its performance. The focus is on adverse change, which simply may be translated as damage, not necessarily loss of material. The implications of this generalization will be further explored in the discussion of wear measures. Older definitions of wear and application oriented definitions often define wear in terms of limited contact situations, such as sliding or rolling contact between solid bodies. However, the definition of wear given does not have such limitations. It includes contact situations involving sliding, rolling, and impact between solid bodies, as well as contact situations between a solid surface and a moving fluid or a stream of liquid or solid particles. The wear in these latter situations is normally referred to as some form of erosion, such as cavitation, slurry, or solid particle erosion. At least in the context of engineering application and design, these considerations essentially indicate what wear is. A brief consideration as to what it is not is of importance


as well. Engineers, designers, and the users frequently use the phrase ‘‘it’s worn out.’’ Basically, this means that as a result of use, it no longer works the way it should or it is broken. In this context, the part or device may no longer function because it has experienced severe corrosion or because a part is broken into two pieces. In terms of the definitions for wear, these two failures would not be considered wear failures nor would the two mechanisms, that is, corrosion and fracture, be considered wear. Corrosion is not a form of wear because it is not caused by relative motion. Brittle and fatigue fracture in the sense referred to above are not considered forms of wear because they are more a body phenomenon rather than a surface phenomenon and relative motion and contact are not required for these mechanisms to occur. While corrosion and fracture, per se, are not forms of wear, corrosion and fracture phenomena are definitely elements in wear. This is because in a wearing situation, there can be corrosive and fracture elements contributing to the damage that results from the relative motion. An illustration of this point is sliding, rolling, and impact situations in which material is lost as a result of the formation and propagation of cracks near the surface. In such situations, fatigue and brittle fracture mechanisms are generally involved in the wear. In addition to be involved in the wear, corrosion and fracture, per se, can be influenced by wear. An example of wear being a factor in fracture of a part is a situation where the wear scar might act as a stress concentration location to initiate fracture or where fracture results from the propagation of a crack formed in the wearing process. An example of a situation where both types of relationships can occur is wear situations involving the pumping of slurries. In such situations, wear behavior involves both chemical and mechanical factors and the severity of the corrosion can be influenced by the wear. These interactions and involvement of fracture and corrosion phenomena in wear will be further discussed and illustrated in subsequent chapters. While illustrated by corrosion and fracture, the important point is that all failures of devices or life-limiting aspects associated with use or exposure are not the result of wear and wear processes. To be considered wear failures, there generally has to be some surface, mechanical, and relative motion aspects involved. However, as will be shown, wear mechanisms involve a very large number of physical and chemical phenomena including those involved in fracture and corrosion. In view of these considerations, another way of defining wear for engineering use is that wear is damage to a surface resulting from mechanical interaction with another surface, body or fluid, which moves relative to it. Generally, the concern with wear is that ultimately this damage will become so large that it will interfere with the proper functioning of the device. While not the subject of this book, it is interesting to note that machining and polishing are forms of wear. As such, there is a positive side to wear and wear phenomena. In situations involving sliding or rolling contact, a companion term with wear is friction. Friction is the force that occurs at the interface between two contacting bodies and opposes relative motion between those bodies. It is tangential to the interface and its direction is opposite to the motion or the incipient motion. Generally, the magnitude of the friction force is described in terms of a coefficient of friction, m, which is the ratio of the friction force, F, to the normal force, N, pressing the two bodies together m¼

F N

ð1:1Þ

Distinction is frequently made between the friction force that must be overcome to initiate sliding and that which must be overcome to maintain a constant relative speed.


The coefficient associated with the former is usually designated the static coefficient of friction, ms, and the latter the dynamic or kinetic coefficient of friction, mk. A frequently encountered impression is that the two terms, wear and friction, are almost synonymous in the sense that high friction equates to a high wear rate or poor wear behavior. The complimentary point of view is that low friction equates to a low wear rate or good wear behavior. As a generality, this is an erroneous concept. While there are common elements in wear and friction phenomena, as well as interrelationships between the two, that simple type of correlation is frequently violated. This point will become clear as the mechanisms for wear and friction, as well as design relationships, are presented and discussed. However, the point can be illustrated by the following observation. Teflon is noted for its ability to provide a low coefficient of friction at a sliding interface, for example, a dry steel=Teflon system typically has a value of m 0.1. However, the wear of the system is generally higher than can be achieved with a lubricated hardened steel pair, where m 0.2. Another element that can be considered in differentiating between friction and wear is energy dissipation. Friction is associated with the total energy loss in a sliding system. The principal form of that energy loss is heat, which accounts for almost all of the energy loss (7–9). The energy associated with the movement or damage of the material at the surface, which is wear, is normally negligibly small in comparison to the heat energy. Often in rolling situations, an additional term, related to friction, is used. This is traction. Traction is defined as a physical process in which a tangential force is transmitted across the interface between two bodies through dry friction or an intervening fluid film, resulting in motion, stoppage, or the transmission of power. The ratio of the tangential force transmitted, T, and the normal force, N, is called the coefficient of traction, mT mT ¼ T=N

ð1:2Þ

The coefficient of traction is equal to or less than the coefficient of friction. In rolling situations, the amount of traction occurring can often be a significant factor in wear behavior. In sliding situations, the coefficient of traction equals the coefficient of friction. There are two other terms, lubrication and lubricant, which are related to friction and wear behavior and that need to be defined. One is lubrication. Lubrication may be defined as any technique for: (a) lowering friction, (b) lowering wear, or (c) lowering both. A lubricant is a material that, when introduced to the interface, performs one of those functions. Understood in this manner, any substance, solid, liquid, or gas, may be a lubricant; lubricants are not just liquid petroleum-based materials. It should be recognized that some materials may act as a friction reducer and a wear riser in some situations, as well as the converse. Different types of lubrication and lubricants are discussed in later sections and reasons for this apparent anomaly are pointed out. This is also a further illustration of the distinction between friction and wear.

1.2. WEAR CLASSIFICATIONS There are three apparent ways in which wear may be classified. One is in terms of the appearance of the wear scar. A second way is in terms of the physical mechanism that removes the material or causes the damage. The third is in terms of the conditions surrounding the wear situation. Examples of terms in the first category are pitted, spalled, scratched, polished, crazed, fretted, gouged, and scuffed. Terms like adhesion, abrasion, delamination, oxidative are examples of the second type of classification. Phrases are


commonly used for the third method of classification. Examples of this are lubricated wear, unlubricated wear, metal-to-metal sliding wear, rolling wear, high stress sliding wear, and high temperature metallic wear. All three methods of classification are useful to the engineer but in different ways. Classification in terms of appearance aids in the comparison of one wear situation with another. In this manner, it helps the engineer extrapolate experience gained in one wear situation to a newer one. It also aids in recognizing changes in the wear situation, such as differences in the wear situation at different locations on a part or at different portions of the operation cycle of a device. It is reasonable that if the wear looks different, different ways of controlling it or predicting it are required; if similar in appearance, the approaches used should also be similar. Some of these aspects can be illustrated by considering the wear of gears. Scuffing is a term used to characterize the appearance of a wear scar produced as a result of sliding with poor or no lubrication in metal-to-metal systems. With gears, different portions of the tooth experience different types of relative motion. If designed and fabricated properly, near the pitch line it should be pure rolling. As you move further out, sliding occurs. If scuffing features are observed at the pitch line, it can be inferred that sliding is occurring, pointing to a possible contour or alignment problem. In a lubricated situation, there may be little evidence of wear near the tip. However, if evidence of scuffing wear is found to occur with time or with different operating conditions, it suggests a possible lubrication problem. Increased scuffing in such a case could be the result of lubricant degradation or loss, or the use of the wrong lubricant for the different condition. These observations would guide engineering action to resolve the problems. The usefulness of classification by physical mechanism would be in guiding the engineer in using the correct models to project or predict wear life and to identify the significance of design parameters that can be controlled or modified. Given that the mechanism for wear is known, the engineer can then identify the dependency of such parameters as load, geometry, speed, and environment. From a designer’s viewpoint, the third type of classification is the most desirable and potentially the most useful. It describes a wear situation in terms of the macroscopic conditions that are dealt with in design. The implication is that given such a description, a very specific set of design rules, recommendations, equations, etc., can be identified and used. While wear is generally described in terms of these three classifications, there is no uniform system in place at the present time. In addition, the same term might be used in the context of more than one classification concept. For example, the term scuffing is used in several ways. One author may use this term simply to describe the physical appearance. Another author may use this term to indicate that the wear mechanism is adhesive wear. A third may use it to indicate wear under sliding conditions. This leads to another point that needs to be recognized with respect to these classifications. While relationships exist between these classifications, the classifications are not equivalent nor are the interrelationships necessarily simple, direct, unique, or complete. A common error is to assume that a category in one is uniquely associated with ones in the other two, such as unlubricated metal-to-metal sliding is always associated with a scuffing appearance and adhesive wear. Basically, this is because there are numerous ways by which materials can wear and the way it wears is influenced by a wide number of factors. With the present state of knowledge within tribology, complete correlation between operating conditions, wear mechanisms, and appearance generally are not possible, particularly in relationship to practical engineering situations. Because of the complex nature of wear behavior, it has even been argued that it may never be possible or even practical to establish complete relations of this type (10,11). While this is the


case, analytical relationships of more limited scope can be used effectively in engineering (12,13). All three of types of classifications are used in this book, since individually they are of use to the designer and any one classification method is not sufficient to provide an adequate description in engineering situations. REFERENCES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

F Bowden, D Tabor. The Friction and Lubrication of Solids, Part I. New York: Oxford U. Press, 1964, pp 3, 285. E Rabinowicz. Types of wear. In: Friction and Wear of Materials. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1965, p 109. M Peterson, W Winer, eds. Introduction to wear control. In: Wear Control Handbook. ASME, 1980, p 1. M Neale, ed. Mechanisms of wear. In: Tribology Handbook. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1973, p F6. Glossary of Terms and Definitions in the Field of Friction, Wear and Lubrication (Tribology). Paris: Research Group on Wear of Engineering Materials Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1969. Standard Terminology Relating to Wear and Erosion, G40. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. ASTM International. H Uetz, J Fohl. Wear as an energy transformation process. Wear 49:253–264, 1978. D Rigney, J Hirth. Plastic deformation and sliding friction of metals. Wear 53:345–370, 1979. F Kennedy. Thermomechanical phenomena in high speed rubbing. In: R Burton, ed. Thermal Deformation in Frictionally Heated Systems. Elsevier, 1980, pp 149–164. D Rigney, W Glaeser. Wear resistance. In: ASM Handbook. Vol. 1, 9th ed. Materials Park, OH: ASM, 1978, pp 597–606. K Ludema. Selecting Materials for Wear Resistance. Proceedings of International Conference on Wear of Materials. ASME, 1981, pp 1–6. R Bayer. Wear Analysis for Engineers. HNB Publishing, 2002. R Bayer. Comments on engineering needs and wear models. In: K Ludema, R Bayer, eds. Tribological Modeling for Mechanical Designers, STP 1105. ASTM International, 1991, pp 3–11.


2

Wear Measures Previously wear was defined as damage to a surface. The most common form of that damage is loss or displacement of material and volume of material removed or displaced can be used as a measure of wear. For scientific purposes, this is generally the measure used to quantify wear. In many studies, particularly material investigations, mass loss is frequently the measure used for wear instead of volume. This is done because of the relative ease of performing a weight loss measurement. While mass and volume are often interchangeable, there are three problems associated with the use of mass as the measure of wear. One is that direct comparison of materials can only be done if their densities are the same. For bulk materials, this is not a major obstacle, since the density is either known or easily determined. In the case of coatings, however, this can be a major problem, since their densities may not be known or as easily determined. The other two problems are more intrinsic ones. A mass measurement does not measure displaced material, only material removed. In addition, the measured mass loss can be reduced by wear debris and transferred material that becomes attached to the surface and cannot be removed. It is not an uncommon experience in wear tests, utilizing mass or weight loss technique, to have a specimen ‘‘grow’’, that is, have a mass increase, as a result of transfer or debris accumulation. From the above, it can be seen that volume is the fundamental measure for wear when wear is equated with loss or displacement of material. This is the case most frequently encountered in engineering applications. However, in engineering applications, the concern is generally not with volume loss, per se. The concern is generally with the loss of a dimension, an increase in clearance or a change in a contour. These types of changes and the volume loss are related to each other through the geometry of the wear scar and therefore can be correlated in a given situation. As a result, they are essentially the same measure. The important aspect to recognize is that the relationship between wear volume and a wear dimension, such as depth or width, is not necessarily a linear one. This is an important aspect to keep in mind when dealing with engineering situations, since many models for wear mechanisms are formulated in terms of volume. A practical consequence of this is illustrated by the following example. Consider the situation where there is some wear experience with a pair of materials in a situation similar to one currently under study. Both applications are sensitive to wear depth. In the prior situation, it was observed that a reduction of load by a factor of 2 increased wear life by a factor of 2 and by implication reduced wear rate by the same factor. In the current situation the wear is too large and there is the possibility to reduce the load by a factor of 2. Because of the prior experience, it is assumed that this decrease in load should result in reducing wear by a 50%; however, when tried, only a 30% improvement


is found. The difference in the results of load reduction in the two situations can be explained if the primary relation is between wear volume and load, not depth and load. In the first situation, the part had a uniform cross-section and, as a result, the volume wear rate and the depth rate of wear rate would both have been proportional to load. In the second situation, the geometry of the wearing part was such that the wear volume was proportional to the square of the wear depth. This results in the depth rate of wear being proportional to square root of the load. In which case a factor of 2 reduction in load would result in only a 30% improvement. This is not a very profound point but is one that is frequently overlooked or not initially recognized in design work. Volume, mass, and dimension are not the only measures for wear that are used in engineering. There is a wide variety of what may be termed operational measures of wear that are used. Life, vibration level, roughness, appearance, friction level, and degree of surface crack or crazing are some of the measures that are encountered. Generally, these measures are parameters that are related to performance, correlatable to wear, and typically monitored or can be monitored. There are two other practical reasons why such measures are used or needed. One is that the volume, dimension, or mass change associated with the wear feature of significance is so small that it is impractical to measure it, so another type of measurement relatable to wear is required. Since mass or volume loss is typically negligible in the wear of lenses, using the amount of scratches or haziness on a lens surface is an example of this. The other reason is that volume, dimension, or mass, while significant and measurable, cannot be conveniently measured, while the appearance of the part or response of the mechanism to that wear can be. For example, in a high-speed printer, the degradation of print quality can easily be monitored, but it may take several hours or days to disassemble the printer to obtain a wear depth measurement on the part. While the utilization of these types of wear measures is often a practical necessity, they do add one more complication to engineering considerations of wear. It must be recognized that these operational measures of wear are generally indirectly related to primary wear behavior. As a result, additional factors have to be considered when extrapolating from one situation to another or relating to fundamental wear theory. One example of this would be the need to consider aspects, which are similar to the one discussed previously regarding the dependency on load. Another example is the need to consider the possibility that other elements, not related to the wear, could produce similar operational changes. For example, poor print quality in a high-speed printer could be the result of timing problems in the electronic controls, rather than excessive wear. Another example would be in the use of vibration levels to monitoring roller bearing performance. The noise level tends to increase or change with wear, but it could also change as a result of contamination of the bearing or loss of lubricant. Generally in such cases additional measurements or observations are needed to eliminate the effects of these other elements on the operational parameter.


3

Wear Mechanisms 3.1. OVERVIEW This chapter focuses on the classification of wear in terms of the manner in which material is lost, displaced, or damaged as a result of a wearing action. As a starting point, it has been observed that wear, when it involves loss of material, generally occurs through the formation of particles rather than by loss of individual atoms (1). A similar statement can be made when wear is considered as displacement or even as damage. These aspects are generally the precursors to the formation of particles and their initial manifestations are generally on a much larger scale than atomic dimensions and involve more than individual atoms. A corollary of these observations is that wear mechanisms can generally be thought of as typical material failure mechanisms, occurring at or near the surface, which produce particles, rather than as atomic processes. As a consequence, most wear mechanisms are built around concepts such as brittle fracture, plastic deformation, fatigue, and cohesive and adhesive failures in bonded structures. In the case of wear, the complexities associated with each of these types of mechanisms are compounded by the fact that more than one body is involved as well as the unique properties and features of surfaces and the effect of wear on these. While this is the case, wear in some situation can result from atom removal processes. For example, as a result of high temperatures developed during machining, a contributing mechanism in tool wear can be by diffusion of atoms into the work piece (2–8). An additional example of a situation in which wear can occur by loss of atoms is an electrical contact situation that involves sparking. In this case, material can be lost as a result of the arcing process, which is usually described in terms of atom removal [(9,10), Sec. 7.6 of Engineering Design for Wear: Second Edition, Revised and Expanded (EDW 2E)]. Except for a few unique situations, such as these, atomic loss processes are not important in current engineering. However, atomic processes may become more important with the evolution of micro-electro-mechanical devices (MEMS) (11), where they may become life-limiting factors as a result of their sensitivity to very small amounts of wear. A cursory review of tribological literature would tend to indicate that there is an extremely large number of wear mechanisms. For example, the glossary of this book contains over 80 terms for wear mechanisms. While extensive, this is not an all-inclusive list; others mechanisms or terms for them can be found in the literature, as well. While this is the case, it is possible to group wear mechanisms into a few generic categories. In the 1950s wear mechanisms were broken down into the following categories: adhesion, abrasion, corrosion, surface fatigue, and minor categories (12). While increased knowledge has made these categories somewhat simplistic and incomplete, wear behavior is still often categorized in these terms (13–18). However, a more refined and extensive set of categories is more appropriate and useful (19). These categories are given in Table 3.1. In general, wear


Table 3.1 Generic Wear Mechanisms 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Adhesion Single-cycle deformation Repeated-cycle deformation Oxidation (corrosion, chemical) Thermal Tribofilm Atomic Abrasion

behavior can be described either by specific mechanisms in these eight categories or by some combination of mechanisms in these categories. The generic type of mechanism that is included in the adhesion or adhesive wear category may be described in the following manner. The basic concept is that, when two surfaces come into contact, they adhere to one another at localized sites. As the two surfaces move relative to one another, wear occurs by one surface pulling the material out of the other surface at these sites. For single-cycle deformation wear the concept is that of mechanical damage that can be caused during a single contact, such as plastic deformation, brittle fracture, or cutting. Repeated-cycle deformation wear mechanisms are also mechanical processes but ones were repeated contact or exposure is required for the damage to result. Examples are fatigue or ratcheting mechanisms (20–27). These three types of mechanisms are illustrated in Fig. 3.1. Oxidation wear mechanisms, also referred to as corrosive or chemical wear mechanisms, are those in which chemical reactions are the controlling factor. With this type of

Figure 3.1 Conceptual illustration of adhesive and deformation wear mechanisms. A generic form of adhesive wear is shown. Single-cycle deformation wear is illustrated as a cutting process, while a fatigue process is used to illustrate repeated-cycle deformation wear.


Figure 3.2 Illustration of the basic concept of chemical or oxidative wear, showing the removal, reformation, and removal of the reacted layer.

mechanism, the growth of the reacted or oxide layer controls wear rate. However, material removal occurs by one of the deformation modes, either in the layer or at the interface between the layer and the un-reacted material. An illustration of this process on an asperity on a steel surface is shown in Fig. 3.2. Thermal wear mechanisms are those in which surface temperature or local heating of the surface controls the wear. Such mechanisms involve both a temperature increase, which is the driving factor, and material removal mechanisms, such as atomic, adhesion, and single or repeated cycle deformation mechanisms. Friction and hysteretic heating in wear situations can result in the formation of thermally soften layers or regions, melting, thermal cycling of the surface, regions of localized expansion, such as thermal mounding (28), and evaporation. The degree to which any of these phenomena occur can influence wear and, in some cases, they can be the primary and controlling factor in the wear. Figure 3.3 illustrates some thermal wear processes. Films or layers composed of wear debris can form on or between surfaces. The existence of these films, which are called tribofilms, results in another type of wear mechanism or process. With the tribofilm type of mechanism, wear is controlled by the loss of material from the tribofilm. The basic concept is that the tribofilm is in a state of flux. The majority of the material circulates within the film and between the film and the surfaces, with a small amount being displaced from the interface. Under stable conditions, the amount of fresh wear debris that can enter the tribofilm is determined by the amount of material displaced from the interface. This process is illustrated in Fig. 3.4. Atomic wear mechanisms are mechanisms that are based on the removal of individual of atoms or molecules from a surface. Mechanisms, such as electrical discharge, diffusion, and evaporation, are examples (6–8).


Figure 3.3 Illustration of several thermal wear mechanisms, cracking, fatigue, melting, and thermoelastic instability (TEI). With the thermoelastic instability mechanism, the real area of contact is reduced to a few isolated regions or mounds, as illustrated.

Abrasion or abrasive wear mechanisms are deformation mechanisms caused by hard particles or hard protuberances. This category is different from the others; it is primarily a classification based on wear situation, not a type of physical mechanism. However, it is a worthwhile classification because of the unique nature of wear by hard particles and the dominance and importance of this type of wear in many situations. With the older, simpler classification the term abrasion was used somewhat differently. It referred to wear mechanisms associated with hard protuberances or particles that resulted in grooves,


Figure 3.4 Conceptual illustration of a tribofilm wear process, showing the tribofilm composed of wear debris separating the surfaces and the loss of material from this layer.

scratches, or indentations on a surface. Using the newer, more extensive classification, this would correspond to the single-cycle deformation category. However, this is not the only way hard particles can cause wear. Such mechanisms are the typical type associated with hard particles when the wearing surface is softer than the particles. When the wearing surface is harder, the type of mechanism changes to the repeated-cycle deformation type. Abrasion in the current classification includes both types of deformation mechanisms. A fifth category, called minor mechanisms, was also identified in the older classification (29). This was used for what was considered to be unique wear mechanisms, which were only encountered under special situations. However, knowledge gained over the past 50 years has shown that many of these unique mechanisms are variations of the more general types or particular combination of these. An illustration of this is delamination wear (25) and lamination wear (30). Each tends to explain the physical wear process in somewhat different manners and emphasize different aspects. Both involve the idea of crack nucleation and the eventual formation of a particle or fragment as a result of repeated engagement. Hence both can be viewed as subcategories of repeated-cycle deformation. Another illustration is fretting and fretting corrosion. These were considered as unique wear mechanisms associated with small amplitude sliding. It is now generally recognized that these two modes of wear can be described in a two-step sequence. First wear debris is produced by either adhesion, single-cycle or repeated-cycle deformation. The wear debris, as a result of work hardening or oxidation, then acts as an abrasive, accelerating and controlling the wear from that point. By including oxidation of the surface, this sequence is used to explain fretting corrosion as well as fretting (31). While this generic classification applies to all wear situations, the relevance and importance of the individual type of mechanism tends to vary with the nature of the situation. For example, Table 3.2 lists the more significant types typically associated with different types of motion. In addition, abrasion can be important in all situations when there are significant amounts of abrasives, that is hard particles, present. It is generally not important otherwise. Also the importance of chemical and thermal mechanisms tends to vary with the type of material involved and lubrication conditions. Repeated-cycle deformation, oxidation, and tribofilm mechanisms tend to become the more dominant mechanisms in long-term sliding wear behavior.


Table 3.2 Significant Wear Mechanisms Sliding motion Adhesion Single-cycle deformation Repeated-cycle deformation Oxidation Tribofilm Rolling motion Repeated-cycle deformation Impact motion Single-cycle deformation Repeated-cycle deformation

Figure 3.5 Examples of the simultaneous occurrence of several wear mechanisms during sliding. Cracks and severe plastic deformation indicate repeated-cycle deformation mechanisms. Grooves are indicative of single-cycle deformation. Adhered and deformed material is an indicator of adhesive wear. Debris layers and layers of compacted material are characteristics of tribofilm mechanisms. (‘‘A’’ from Ref. 174, ‘‘B’’ from Ref. 87 reprinted with permission from ASME.)


More than one type of mechanism can be present in a wear situation. Typically, one can find in the examination of a wear scar features indicative of different mechanisms, as illustrated by the micrographs shown in Fig. 3.5. When more than one mechanism is present, they can interact serially to form a more complex wear process, as illustrated by the fretting situation discussed previously in this section. They can also act in a parallel or simultaneous fashion, with each contributing to the total wear. While this is the case, most situations can usually be characterized in terms of one controlling or dominant mechanism. There are some situations, however, where this cannot be done and it is necessary to consider the contributions of each (10,32–34). There is another approach to classifying wear mechanism that can also be useful (35). In this classification, wear mechanisms are divided into cohesive wear and interfacial wear categories. Under cohesive wear are those wear mechanisms which occur primarily in the relatively large volumes adjacent to the interface. Interfacial wear, on the other hand, includes those mechanisms related to the interface alone. Both types of deformation mechanisms would be included in the former, while adhesion, tribofilm, and oxidation mechanisms in the latter. Thermal could be of either type, depending on the depth of the heat-affected zone. This alternate classification focuses on the significance of the energy densities involved in the two regions, that is, in the thin layers at the interface and in the larger regions adjacent to it. A corollary to this classification is that bulk properties and responses are generally major aspects in the mechanisms included in the cohesive category, while surface properties and phenomena are key in the interfacial category. While this classification is not particularly useful in grouping physical mechanisms, it is useful for identifying aspects that must be considered in the treatment of wear and offers the opportunity for some insight into what are controlling factors in certain wear situations, that is surface vs. bulk phenomena. The classification of basic wear into the eight categories shown in Table 3.1 is not necessarily a complete or rigorous classification. However, it does provide a useful basis for an effective engineering understanding of wear, particularly as it relates to design.

3.2. ADHESIVE MECHANISMS Before adhesive mechanisms are discussed some general concepts regarding the nature of the contact between two surfaces and the behavior of inter-atomic forces need to be considered. The first aspect that will be considered is the area of contact. In engineering, the macro-geometry or contour of the bodies in contact is often used to determine contact area. This is usually done by geometrical projection or by models, which are based on the elastic or plastic deformation. For example, the Hertz contact theory is frequently used not only to determine stress levels in the contact but the size of the contact region as well (10,36). In these approaches, the surfaces are generally assumed to be smooth. Actual surfaces, on the other hand, always exhibit some degree of roughness and as a result the actual contact situation is different from that implied by these macromethods. Figure 3.6 illustrates the actual situation. What this illustrates is that actual physical contact occurs at localized spots within the area that is defined by the macro-geometry. These points at which the actual contact occurs are referred to as junctions. The sum of the individual contact areas of these junctions is called the real area of contact. The area of contact that is determined through the macro-considerations is called the apparent area of contact. As will be seen, fundamental physical models regarding wear generally are


Figure 3.6 Apparent and real area of contact. Contact occurs are discrete locations, called junctions.

developed in terms of real area considerations, while engineering formulations and models generally are related to the apparent area of contact. The roughness characteristics of the surface have a significant influence on the number of junctions formed, as well as on the ratio of the real area of contact to the apparent area of contact. The degree to which one surface penetrates the other, which is a function of the normal force pressing the bodies together, can also influence both these aspects. Figure 3.7 shows how the real area of contact changes, assuming one surface to be flat and smooth, as load and penetration is increased. The real area in this illustration increases not only because the cross-sectional area of an asperity increases with penetration but also because the number of asperities encountered increases with penetration. The size and number of these junctions and their relationship to the apparent area of contact have been investigated by both theoretical and experimental means (37–40). Because of the potential range of the parameters involved, a wide variety of contact conditions is possible; however, some generalization may be made. One is that the real area of contact is generally much less than the apparent area. The ratio might be as small as 104 in practical situations (41). A similar generalization can be made regarding individual junctions. It has been estimated that the diameter of typical junctions is in the range of 1–100 mm (42). The larger value would most likely occur for a very rough surface and high loads. Diameters of the order of 10 mm would be more likely in more typical contact situations. While on the basis of stability, it can be argued that there must be at least three junctions involved, the number generally is larger. Estimates based on the yield point of materials and junction size generally indicate that the number ranges from the order of


Figure 3.7 The effect of increased load on the real area of contact. h is the penetration of a rough, hard, surface into a smooth, flat, soft surface at a low load; H, at a higher load. Both the number and size of the junctions increase with increasing penetration.

10 to the order of 103, with 10 to 102 being more likely (43). The deformation properties of the materials involved and the loading conditions on the junctions also influence the real area of contact. Junction growth as a result of applied shear, that is, friction, also occurs. The deformation at the junction can be plastic as well as elastic. Just how much of each occurs depends on the number of junctions and their size, as well as the properties of the materials involved. While it is not impossible to have only elastic deformation on all the junctions, this is generally not the case. Models, assuming typical surface profiles, indicate that some junctions would generally be plastically deformed (37,38). This tends to be confirmed by the topography found in the initial stages of wear. Some evidence of local plastic deformation can usually be found on these. The contact between rough surfaces and the effect of shear have been modeled and equations for the real area of contact have been developed (37,38,44,45). A summary of the equations for the real area of contact obtained from these models is given in Table 3.3. If the plasticity index, a measure of the state of stress at the junctions, is less than 0.6, all the junctions are elastically deformed; if greater than 1, all are plastically deformed. For intermediate values, there are some junctions in both states. It can be seen from the equation for the plasticity index that increased hardness, lower modulus, more uniform and rounder asperities reduce the degree of plastic deformation in the real area of contact. For typical unworn surfaces, the plasticity index is generally closer to 1 than 0.6. However, roughness features tend to change with wear and as a result the index changes with wear, often becoming smaller (37). Because of these changes in roughness and the change in apparent area of contact that is often the result of wear, the ratio of real to apparent areas of contact, the number of junctions formed, and the size of the junctions typically change with wear as well. In summary, the most significant points to be recognized about the contact between two bodies is that actual contact occurs at individual sites within an apparent area of contact and that the real area is generally only a fraction of the apparent area. The features observed in most micrographs of wear scars produced under sliding conditions support this view of the contact between two surfaces, as well as the generalizations regarding the ratio of real and apparent areas, junction size and number, and the plasticity index. It is important to understand the nature of the interaction that occurs at these junctions on both an asperity and an atomic level. At the asperity level, the focus is on the type


Table 3.3

Equations for the Real Area of Contact

Plasticityindex 0 0 c ¼ Ep dr0 For elastic contact, c < 0.6 For plastic contact, c > 1.0 Mixed, 0.6 < c < 1.0 Elastic contact AR

3:2P 1=2 E 0 ðd0 =r0 Þ

Plastic contact A0R ¼ Pp Effect of shear 1=2 A0R ¼ AR 1 þ am2 Symbols c, plasticity index AR, real area of contact without friction A0 R, real area of contact with friction p, hardness of softer material P, load E 0 , composite elastic modulus 1 ð1v21 Þ ð1v22 Þ þ E1 E2 E, elastic modulus n, Poisson’s ratio d0 , composite standard deviation of asperity peak heights 2 1=2 s1 þ s22 s, standard deviation of asperity peak heights r0 , composite mean radius of curvature of asperity tips 1 1 1 r1 þ r2 r, radius of curvature of asperity tips m, coefficient of friction a, empirical constant (approximately 12)

of deformation that occurs at these junctions. To understand the interactions on an atomic level, it is necessary to consider the nature of inter-atomic forces. The behavior of the force between two atoms is illustrated in Fig. 3.8. For large separations between the atoms there is a weak attractive force. At separations comparable to inter-atomic spacing the attractive force increases rapidly. With still smaller separations, the attractive force begins to decrease and ultimately the force changes to a repulsive one. Arrays of atoms also exhibit the same general behavior, which is shown in Fig. 3.9 for the case of an Al crystal and a Zn crystal (46). In this figure, A shows the variation in the potential energy of such a contact as a function of the separation of the two crystals. This is the more common way of describing the interactions. A negative potential energy indicates bonding. The slope of the curve is force; a negative slope indicates a repulsive force and a positive slope indicates an attractive force. B shows the corresponding variation in force with separation.


Figure 3.8 General nature of the force between atoms as a function of separation.

Since junctions form as a result of two surfaces being pressed together, the nature of inter-atomic forces indicates that bonding occurs at these junctions. It also means that over some portion of the real area of contact the atoms of the two surfaces must have gone past the point of maximum bonding. This is the only way the forces can be balanced. This implies that some adhesive forces or bonds must be overcome to separate the two surfaces at these sites. This atomic view of the contact situation at the junctions provides the foundation for the concept of adhesive wear. Consider the diagram shown in Fig. 3.10. This depicts the situation at a junction at which bonding has occurred. As the two surfaces move relative to one another, rupture of the junction will eventually occur. If the rupture occurs along Path 2, which is the original interface, no material will be lost from either surface, though some plastic deformation may have occurred. If, on the other hand, the rupture occurs along some other path, illustrated by Path 1 in the figure, the upper surface would have lost material. The removal of material from a surface in this manner is called adhesive wear. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) and electron dispersive x-ray (EDX) micrographs, illustrating the adhesive wear process, are shown in Fig. 3.11. These micrographs show the sequence of events associated with a simulated asperity moving across a smooth flat surface. In this case, a small rounded iron stylus simulates the asperity. In the lower right of A, the results of asperity engagement and junction formation are evident. Initially the junction formed by this asperity appears to rupture at the original interface, leaving only a plastically deformed groove in the wake of its motion. Some deformation of the asperity is likely as well during this period. At some point, failure no longer occurs at the original interface but at some depth within the asperity, leaving a portion of the asperity adhering to the flat surface. This is the event indicated in the middle by the adhered wear fragment. B shows that as sliding continued, the same series of events repeated (upper left in the EDX) but with the asperity now modified both by plastic deformation and adhesive wear. There is a mathematical model for adhesive wear that has been found to be in good agreement with experimental observations (47). It has been used extensively in describing


Figure 3.9 ‘‘A’’ shows the variation in adhesive energy between A1 and Zn surfaces as a function of separation (from Ref. 46). ‘‘B’’ illustrates the corresponding variation in the force between the two surfaces.

adhesive wear behavior. This formulation can be developed as follows. Assume that the real area of contact is composed of n circular junctions of diameter d. Further, assume that if an adhesive wear fragment is formed, it will be hemispherical shaped with a diameter d. The total real area of contact, Ar, is then Ar ¼

npd 2 4

ð3:1Þ

An assumption frequently used in tribology is that all the junctions are plastically deformed. In which case Ar is also given by the following equation from Table 3.3 Ar ¼

P p


ð3:2Þ

Figure 3.10 The lower diagram illustrates possible separation paths at a junction. Separation along Path 1 does not result in loss of material. Separation along Path 2 results in rupture and loss of material, as indicated in the upper diagrams.

where P is the normal force pressing the two surface together and p is the penetration hardness of the softer material. Combining these equations, the following is obtained for n: n¼

4P ppd 2

ð3:3Þ

Now, if the distance of sliding over which any given junction is operative is approximately d, then in a unit distance of sliding each junction must be replaced by another (1=d) times. Therefore, the total number of junctions occurring in a unit distance, N, is N¼

n 4P ¼ d ppd 3

ð3:4Þ

If K is the probability that the rupture of any given junction will result in adhesive wear, the number of junctions producing adhesive wear in a unit sliding distance, M, is given by M ¼ KN ¼

4P ppd 3

ð3:5Þ

Since the volume of an adhesive wear fragment is pd3=12, the volumetric wear rate, dV=dx, where V is the volume of wear and x the distance of sliding, is dV pd 3 ¼ dx 12

ð3:6Þ

Integrating and combining the following relationship is obtained for adhesive wear: V¼

K Px 3p


ð3:7Þ

Figure 3.11 Example of adhesive wear process. ‘‘A’’ shows the wear scar produced by an iron pin sliding across the flat surface of a nickel disk. ‘‘B’’ is an EDX map for iron on the disk surface, confirming transfer of material from the pin to the disk. (From Ref. 175, reprinted with permission from ASME.)

This equation was first developed by Archard (47) and because of that it is frequently referred to as Archard’s equation. A key point in the development of this equation is that K is a probability and therefore it cannot be greater than unity. Experimental data are consistent with that. This can be seen in Table 3.4, which gives values for K inferred from sliding wear data for a range of conditions. Such data generally provide an upper-bound estimate of K, since in many cases other wear mechanisms are present, contributing to the wear and possibly even dominating the situation. However, K values in the range of 104 or higher have been documented for wear situations in which adhesion has dominated (48). This being the case, these data also do indicate that in most situations K is likely quite small, particularly in practical


Table 3.4

K Values for Adhesive Wear

Combination Selfmated metals Dry Lubricated Non-self-mated metals Dry Lubricated Plastics on metals Dry Lubricated

K 2 104 – 0.2 9 107 – 9 104 6 104 – 2 103 9 108 – 3 104 3 107 – 8 105 1 106 – 5 106

situations. It also indicates that the range of K values possible is very large. The values indicate that the probability of a junction wearing by adhesion can range from one in ten to less than one in a million. As a point of reference, a value of K of 105 and often much less is required for acceptable wear behavior in applications. This being the case, the large range possible for K makes it an extremely important parameter in controlling this type of wear mechanism. From an engineering point of view, this means selecting design parameters so that high values of K are avoided, i.e., the probability of adhesion is low. One factor that can affect K is the relative strength of the junction interfaces to the strength of the asperities that make up the junctions. The weaker the adhesion at the interfaces is, the less likely adhesive wear will occur. Consequently, choosing conditions, which inhibit adhesion over those, that promote adhesion reduce K and adhesive wear. Interface adhesion can be affected by the similarity of the two materials in contact. The more similar they are, the stronger the adhesion. As a result, dissimilar pairs should have lower values of K than more similar or identical pairs. In addition to composition, such aspects as lattice parameters and mutual solubility characteristics, can also be factors in determining the degree of similarity (49–52). Another factor affecting interface adhesion is surface energy. Lower surface energies result in lower adhesion. Therefore, since polymers and ceramics generally have lower surface energies than metals, K values would generally be lower for situations involving these materials than between metals. Also, the presence of oxides, lubricants and contaminates on metal surfaces reduce surface energy and result in lowering of K values. The data in Table 3.4 illustrate some of these trends. Clean, unlubricated, and similar metal pairs generally have high values for K. Lubricated conditions give the lowest values and conditions involving ceramics and polymers have intermediate values associated with them. As is shown in the following, there is a minimum asperity load required for transfer to take place and a minimum asperity load for the transferred fragment to remain attached. K, which is the average probability for transfer, will be changed as the percentage of junctions with loads below the critical value for transfer changes, since the probability for failure at these junctions is 0. Consequently, K can also be affected by the distribution of load across the junctions. The percentage of these junctions would tend to be higher as load is decreased, since the average pressure on the junctions decreases with decreasing load (38). A simple model can illustrate the requirement for a minimum asperity load for transfer (53).


Consider a circular junction of diameter d and the formation of hemispherical wear fragment of diameter d, as illustrated in Fig. 3.12. For such an ideal situation, the adhesive wear process can be reduced to the following criteria. For adhesive wear to take place, the elastic energy stored in the volume of the potential fragment, Ev, must be equal to or greater than the energy associated with the new surfaces, Es. Mathematically, Ev Es

ð3:8Þ

Assuming that the tip of the asperity has been plastically deformed, the stored elastic energy per unit volume is s2y

ev ¼

2Y

ð3:9Þ

where sy is the yield point and Y is Young’s modulus. Since the volume of the hemispherical region is pd3=12, Ev ¼

pd 3 s2y 24Y

ð3:10Þ

Noting that two hemispherical surfaces are formed and assuming that the material on both sides is the same, Es ¼ pd 2 G

ð3:11Þ

where G is the surface energy. Combining, the minimum junction diameter, d0 , required for an adhesive wear fragment to be formed is 24GY s2y

d0 ¼

ð3:12Þ

If Pa is the load supported by that asperity, Pa ¼

ppd 2 4

ð3:13Þ

Combining these two equations and utilizing the following the empirical relationships (53): sy ¼ 3 103 Y p 3

ð3:15Þ

p1=3 b

ð3:16Þ

sy ¼ G¼

ð3:14Þ

where b is a constant for different classes of materials, it can then be shown that the minimum asperity load for adhesive wear to take place is inversely proportional to the surface energy, namely, P0a ¼

4:5 107 b3 G

ð3:17Þ

Since the sum of the asperity loads must equal the applied macro-load, P, a similar relationship should also exist at the macro-level. For the simple case of a uniform asperity


Figure 3.12 Model for the formation of a hemispherical adhesive wear fragment.

distribution, the minimum macro-load, P0 , would be N times Eq. (3.17), where N is the number of asperities in contact. A similar approach can be used to develop expressions regarding the formation of loose adhesive wear fragments (53). The expression for the minimum junction size for a loose fragment is d 00 ¼

2 104 Wab p

ð3:18Þ

The expression for the minimum asperity load is P00a ¼

p 108 Wab p

ð3:19Þ

Wab is the interfacial energy between the two surfaces and p is the hardness of the softer of the two materials. The concept behind these relationships is that when junction separation occurs the stored elastic energy in a bonded fragment will cause that fragment to break off, if the elastic energy is greater than the interface energy. The combined concepts of a minimum load for transfer to occur and K being affected by load are illustrated and supported by the data shown in Figs. 3.13 and 3.14 for unlubricated sliding between noble metal specimens. Figure 3.13 shows how K varies with load for unlubricated sliding between gold specimens. There are two stable regions for K, one below 5 g and the other above 30 g. These two transition points are close to the minimum loads for transfer and loose fragments to occur, respectively. Values of 1 and 25 g are estimated for these, using the simple models described (54). The data suggest that adhesive wear can only be characterized by a stable K value after the mean junction load exceeds the junction load required for the formation of a loose particle. At the same time the data support the concept that K becomes 0 at sufficiently low loads. The fact that in the graph K does not go to 0 and appears to stabilize below 5 g is attributed to the existence of other wear mechanisms. The appearance of wear scars for load under the minimum load for transfer indicates that the wear mechanism is some form of deformation. An example of such a wear scar is shown in Fig. 3.14. Note the absence of features suggestive of transfer. Since a higher plasticity index implies a higher mean junction load, a corollary to the requirement for a minimum load for transfer is that the probability for transfer would tend


Figure 3.13 Variation in K of Eq. (3.7) as a function of load for unlubricated, Au–Au sliding. (From Ref. 53.)

to be higher with higher values of the index. Consequently, roughness conditions that increase the plasticity index would also tend to increase K. Transfer is rarely observed in nominal rolling and impact situations. When it is observed in such situations, traction and slip at the interface are generally present (55,56). Also, a greater degree of transfer and adhesion is observed when interfaces are pulled apart after they have been subjected to shear than when they have not (55–57). It is generally concluded from these observations that the probability for transfer

Figure 3.14 Wear scar on silver, below the minimum load required for transfer. (From Ref. 53, reprinted with permission from John Wiley and Sons, Inc.)


is much lower when junctions are pulled apart than when sheared. As a consequence, adhesive wear is primarily considered to be a sliding wear mechanism. K is typically assume to be 0 for pure rolling and normal impact. In rolling and impact situations, it is generally assumed that any adhesive wear is the result of tangential motion, which may be present. In summary, the model for adhesive wear indicates that the major factor involved is the probability factor, K, which varies over several orders of magnitude. This factor is influenced by a wide variety of parameters, that may be grouped as follows: material pair compatibility, surface energies, lubrication, as well as the nature of asperity contact and load distributions. Also, adhesive wear is most probable in sliding wear situations but may occur in rolling and impact situations when there is slip and traction between the surfaces.

3.3. SINGLE-CYCLE DEFORMATION MECHANISMS Single-cycle deformation mechanisms are deformation mechanisms that produce plastic deformation, permanent displacement, or removal of material in a single engagement. These processes result from the penetration of a softer body by a harder body. Common forms of this type of mechanism for sliding are plowing, wedge formation, cutting, and microcracking, which are illustrated in Fig. 3.15. Physical examples of three of these mechanisms, plowing, wedge formation and cutting, are shown in Fig. 3.16. An example of microcracking would be the fracturing that occurs when an ice pick is dragged across a piece of ice. The same generic mechanisms of plastic deformation and cracking are also possible for pure rolling and normal impact. In rolling and impact situations, cutting is also possible when there is some sliding or tangential motion involved. The micrographs shown in Fig. 3.17 provide additional examples of the damage resulting from these types of single-cycle deformation mechanisms. Single-cycle deformation mechanisms are the dominant mechanisms in abrasive and erosive wear situations, when the particles are harder than the wearing surface. It has been found that for sliding situations in which single-cycle deformation mechanisms dominate, the wear can be described by the following equation, which is the same form as that for adhesion [see Eq. (3.7)]. However, while the forms are the same, the coefficients are affected by different parameters V¼

KPX p

ð3:20Þ

For single-cycle deformation mechanism, the following model provides a basis for this empirical relationship. The model assumes that the junctions between the two surfaces can be represented by an array of hard conical indenters of different sharpness plastically indenting and penetrating a softer surface. As relative sliding occurs the cones produce wear grooves in the softer surface, whose individual volumes are the cross-sectional area of the indentation times the distance of sliding. The situation for a single cone is shown in Fig. 3.18. Since penetration hardness, p, is load divided by projected contact area, the load on an individual cone, Pi, is pai, where ai is contact area for the individual cone. Only the leading surface of the cone is in contact. As a result, the projected contact area of a cone


Figure 3.15 Four single-cycle deformation mechanisms. (From Ref. 142, reprinted with permission from ASM International.)

is pri2=2. This results in the following for Pi: Pi ¼ p

pr2i 2

ð3:21Þ

By consideration of the geometry of the contact, it can be shown that the cross-sectional area of the indentation is ri2 tan yi. The wear volume, dVi, produced in a sliding distance, dx, by a single cone, is therefore given by dVi ¼ r2i tan yi dx

ð3:22Þ

Combining with Eq. (3.21), integrating and summing over the array, the following expression is obtained total amount of wear, V, occurring for a sliding distance of x ( ) n 2 X V¼ Pi tan yi x ð3:23Þ pp i¼1 It is possible to convert this form to one using the total load, P, by using an effective value for tan yi, tan Y. This is defined by the following equation: P tan Y ¼

n X

Pi tan yi

ð3:24Þ

i¼1

Using this effective value, the equation for V can be written as V¼

2 tan Y Px pp

Combing the constants with tan Y, Eq. (3.20) is obtained.


ð3:25Þ

Figure 3.16 Changes in single-cycle deformation wear morphology as a function of increasing load. ‘‘A’’, plowing, ‘‘B’’, wedge formation; ‘‘C’’, cutting. Load increases from A to C. (From Ref. 62, reprinted with permission from ASME.)

In Table 3.5, values of K for different values of Y are given. The equivalent included cone angle and surface roughness condition, as well as the range for some silicon carbide abrasive papers, are also given in this table (58). These suggest that the nominal range for K in typical situations is between 102 and 1. Empirical data from situations where this form of wear is known to dominate indicate a narrower but similar range, 2102 to 2101 (59). Empirical data also show that K is also affected by material properties and wear mechanism. Conceptually, these effects can be taken into account by modifying the relationship between indentation size and groove size. To account for these affects, it is assumed that a proportionality relationship exists between the area of the groove and the area of the indention, rather than being equal. This modifies the expression for tan Y to the following: P tan Y ¼ e

n X

Pi tan yi

ð3:26Þ

i¼1

In this expression, e is the ratio of the groove area to the indentation area, which can be affected by material properties, such as ductility, toughness, and elasticity, and vary with the mechanism. As a result, K, which is proportional to e, would also be influenced by these.


Figure 3.17 Examples of wear scar morphology on metal surfaces, resulting from various singlecycle deformation mechanisms during sliding contact. ‘‘A’’–‘‘D’’, ‘‘F’’, and ‘‘G’’ are from threebody abrasive wear situations. ‘‘E’’ is a wear scar resulting from a single sliding stroke between a hard ball and a softer flat. (‘‘A’’ from Ref. 152, ‘‘B’’ from Ref. 148, ‘‘C’’ & ‘‘D’’ from Ref. 65, ‘‘E’’ from Ref. 67, ‘‘F’’ & ‘‘G’’ from Ref. 64. ‘‘A’’, ‘‘B’’, ‘‘C’’, ‘‘D’’, ‘‘F’’, and ‘‘G’’ reprinted with permission from ASME. ‘‘E’’ reprinted with permission from Elsevier Sequoia S.A.)

K values tend to be higher for microcracking and cutting then for plowing and wedge formation as a result of this effect. With microcracking cracks propagate beyond the indention, which results in material being removed beyond the indentation. Studies have indicated that the cracked area may be up to 10 the indentation area (60). Consequently, for microcracking, e would be greater than 1, and could be as large as 10. For plowing, wedge formation, and cutting, e would be less than or equal to 1, because of elastic


Figure 3.18 Model for single-cycle deformation wear.

recovery. Any elastic recovery, which occurs, will result in the groove area being smaller than the indentation area. As a result, e would be less than 1 and would become smaller with larger degrees of recovery. With cutting, there is less recovery than with wedge formation and plowing. Therefore, e would tend to be larger for cutting than either of the two plastic deformation mechanisms. The difference between plowing and cutting is illustrated in Fig. 3.19. In this figure, the area of the groove produced by a stylus in a softer material is plotted as a function of attack angle. A transition from plowing and wedge formation to cutting occurs at a critical attack angle, ac. In the cutting region, the groove areas are larger and more sensitive to angle than in the plowing region. Since deformation characteristic, such as ductility, toughness, and elasticity, tend to be different with different classes of materials, K can be different for different classes of materials. K tends to be higher for brittle materials and lower for tougher and ductile

Table 3.5 K Values for Different Cone Angles Y ( ) 0 0.1 0.7 1 5 10 20 30 45 60 75 80 85

Cone angle ( )

K

180 179.8 179 178 170 160 140 120 90 60 30 20 10

0 0.001 0.008 0.01 0.06 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.1 2.4 3.6 7.3


Ra (mm)

Abrasive papers

0.01 0.1 1 # 600 10 # 100 100

Figure 3.19 The effect of attack angle on chip formation for a hard stylus sliding against a softer metal surface. (From Ref. 176, reprinted with permission from Elsevier Sequoia S.A.)

materials. Such an effect on K is shown in Fig. 3.20. In this figure, wear rate for three classes of materials is plotted as a function of hardness. For each class, the behavior with hardness is that given by Eq. (3.20). However, the value for K is different for each class. The large difference between carbon and the other two classes of materials is primarily related to the poorer ductility of carbon. With carbons microcracking typically occurs, resulting in additional material loss, while it does not with the metals or plastics. The smaller difference between plastics and metals is a result of the difference between cutting and plowing. It has

Figure 3.20 The effect of hardness on the abrasive wear rate of different classes of materials. The data are for two-body abrasion, using 100 mm SiC paper. (From Ref. 58.)


been shown that the following relationship exists between the coefficient of friction, m, and the angle at which the transition from plowing to cutting takes place, ac (61–65): tanð90 ac Þ

1 m2 2m

ð3:27Þ

Examination of this equation shows that lowering friction reduces the critical angle. Since the coefficient of friction with plastics is generally lower than with metals, cutting, which is more severe, is a more likely mechanism for plastics than for metals. Because of this relationship between the critical angle for cutting and friction, K can also be affected by lubrication. Values of K tend to be a factor of two to five times higher when lubrication is involved [(66); see Table 3.8]. There is also another possible explanation or contributing factor for the increase in K with lubrication. In addition to its effect on the critical attack angle, lubrication can also increase single-cycle deformation wear by its effect on debris accumulation. When wear debris is trapped between or coat surfaces, it tends to provide separation, reducing the amount of contact with and penetration by particles or asperities, as is illustrated in Fig. 3.21. Lubrication tends to remove debris and prevent the buildup, which would result in more contact with the abrasives or asperities. Single-cycle deformation mechanisms are not limited to asperities and particle contacts. These mechanisms can also occur on a macro-scale and be associated with the gross geometry of the contacting bodies (57,67–69). A necessary condition for these mechanisms to occur is that the asperity, particle, or counterface be harder than the wearing surface. This is illustrated by the sharp decrease in abrasive wear that occurs when the surface becomes harder than the abrasive, as shown in Fig. 3.22. Consequently, making the surface harder than the counterface or abrasives can eliminate these mechanisms. As stated initially in this section, single-cycle deformation mechanisms can occur in rolling and impact situations, as well as in sliding situations. These mechanisms follow the same general trend as for sliding, as illustrated by the following equation for solid particle erosion: [(70); see Sec. 3.8] V ¼ K0

Mv2 p

ð3:28Þ

In this equation, M is the total mass of the particles producing the wear and v is particle speed. K0 is similar to K. It is a function of particle profile, that is, sharpness, and material properties and mechanism affect its value in the same manner as with K. It is also affected by incident angle, because of changes in mechanisms (see Sec. 3.8). Some major trends for single-cycle deformation wear mechanisms are: (1) they only occur when the surface is softer than the counterface or particle, (2) wear volume is inversely proportional to hardness, and (3) plastic deformation or ductile mechanisms are milder than cracking or cutting. There is a fourth trend related to elasticity. Except for the difference in elasticity between elastomers and other classes of materials, K is generally not affected by differences in elasticity. K values with elastomers tend to be 0 or much lower than with other materials for plowing and wedge formation as a result of their ability to recovery from very large strains. This difference in elasticity is usually not a significant factor with cutting and K values are unaffected for this mechanism (58). Except in abrasive situations and some sliding situations involving soft materials and very rough surfaces, that is, file-like surfaces, single-cycle wear mechanisms tend to become less significant as wear progresses. This is generally attributed to changes that take place as a result of wear and the emergence of other mechanisms. Typical changes that contribute


Figure 3.21 ‘‘A’’ shows the wear behavior of several polymers sliding against SiC-coated abrasive paper. The decrease in wear rate with number of cycles is attributed to the accumulation of polymer wear debris on the surface of the paper. The effect of this on the contact situation is illustrated in ‘‘B’’. The polymer film tends to protect the surface from contact with the abrasive particles. (From Ref. 156, reprinted with permission from Elsevier Science Publishers.)

to the reduction of single-cycle wear are reduction in the average junction stress and associated penetration, as described in Sec. 3.2 on adhesion, increased conformity of surfaces, and as well as strain-hardening with some materials. An example of this reduction in significance is shown in Fig. 3.23 for the case of lubricated sliding wear of Cu. As can be seen in the figure, striations, indicative of plowing, are the dominant feature initially. As sliding continues, these features become less pronounced and features indicative of repeated-cycle deformation mechanism appear and become the dominant ones.


Figure 3.22 Transition in wear behavior when the wearing material becomes harder than the abrasive. (From Ref. 177.)

3.4. REPEATED-CYCLE DEFORMATION MECHANISMS Repeated-cycle deformation mechanisms are wear mechanisms that require repeated cycles of deformation. There are a number of these mechanisms. Some of these mechanisms involve progressive deformation processes, like creep, compression set, and subsurface flow. However, these are usually limited to particular types of materials in specific wear situations. The more general ones, surface fatigue, delamination, and ratcheting involve fatigue-like or fatigue processes. Such processes involve the accumulation of plastic strain, which ultimately leads to the nucleation and propagation of cracks or fracture, which is similar to conventional fatigue. Micrographs of wear scars associated with these common forms are shown in Figs. 3.24, 3.25, 3.27 and 3.30–3.32. Examples of creep and subsurface flow are shown in Fig. 3.26. In general, the severity of these mechanisms is proportional to some power, often high, of the ratio of an operating stress to a strength property of the material, such as contact pressure to compressive yield stress. The exact form depends on material and wear mechanism. As a class, repeated-cycle deformation mechanisms are not limited to a particular type of motion. They can occur as a result of sliding, rolling, or impact. They are also not limited to contact between two bodies but can occur as a result of contact between surface and abrasive particles. However, they only are important in the latter case when the surface is harder than the particle. Surface fatigue is a generic term used for repeated-cycle deformation wear mechanisms that result from fatigue processes, which occur on and below the surface of contact. These processes result in the formation of cracks and crack networks on and below the surface and in deformed material. Such processes can also result in the formation of pits. Examples of these features are shown in Figs. 3.24, 3.25, 3.27 and 3.30–3.32. Delamination is a particular form of surface fatigue, which is related to the accumulation of


Figure 3.23 Changes in wear scar appearance as a function of the amount of sliding. Data are for lubricated sliding between a steel sphere and a single crystal copper flat. (From Ref. 20.)

dislocations in a narrow band below the surface. This type of wear is illustrated in Fig. 3.27. Ratcheting is another particular form of repeated-cycle deformation wear that is based on incremental plastic flow, the accumulation of plastic strain, and mechanical


Figure 3.24 Examples of surface fatigue wear in metals under conditions of normal impact (A–D) and rolling (E–H). (‘‘A’’–‘‘D’’ from Ref. 75; ‘‘E’’–‘‘G’’ from Ref. 73; ‘‘H’’ from Ref. 71; (‘‘A’’–‘‘D’’ reprinted with permission from Elsevier Science Publishers; ‘‘E’’, original source The Torrington Co., and ‘‘F’’ and ‘‘G’’ reprinted with permission from Texaco’s magazine Lubrication: ‘‘H’’ reprinted with permission from ASME.)

shakedown. This is illustrated in Fig. 3.28. Again fracture ultimately results from crack formation and propagation, that is, fatigue. The common concept associated with the typical forms of repeated-cycle deformation wear is fatigue or, more appropriately, fatigue wear. The basic concept of fatigue wear is that with repeated sliding, rolling, or impacting, material in the vicinity of the surface experiences cyclic stress. As a result of this, stress cycling, plastic strain accumulates and cracks are ultimately formed. With further cycling, the cracks propagate, eventually intersecting with the surface and themselves. These intersections then produce free particles, which are easily removed from the surface by a subsequent motion. This worn surface also experiences stress cycling and the process continues, resulting in progressive loss of material from the surface. This concept is illustrated in Fig. 3.29. This type of wear mechanism is most evident in rolling and impact wear situations, where it is generally recognized as the principal mechanism (71–75). Figs. 3.24 and 3.30 show examples of fatigue wear under such conditions. Fatigue wear is also possible with sliding (21,23,25,76–78). Examples are shown in Figs. 3.25, 3.27, 3.31 and 3.32. In the case of rolling and to a lesser degree with impact, the topological features of the wear scar are often quite suggestive of crack initiation and propagation. Under sliding conditions, the topological features are generally not as suggestive. There are several reasons for this. Features associated with adhesive and abrasive mechanisms frequently confound the appearance in sliding situations. Smearing on the surface also tends to hide surface cracks


Figure 3.24 (continued )

with sliding. In addition, the crack network under rolling and impact tends to be more macroscopic or coarser than those often encountered under sliding conditions and frequently result in larger particles or pits being formed. This tends to make fatigue features


Figure 3.25 Examples of surface fatigue wear in metals (‘‘A’’, ‘‘B’’, and ‘‘C’’) and plastics (‘‘D’’) as a result of sliding. (‘‘A’’ from Ref. 9; ‘‘B’’ from Ref. 24; ‘‘C’’ from Ref. 20; ‘‘D’’ from Ref. 21; A’’ and ‘‘D’’ reprinted with permission from ASME; ‘‘B’’ and ‘‘C’’ reprinted with permission from Elsevier Sequoia S.A.)


Figure 3.26 ‘‘A’’ shows the wear of a lead coated c-ring as a result of small amplitude oscillations, which results from creep. An example of wear resulting from progressive subsurface flow is shown in ‘‘B’’. These micrographs show the wear of an electrical tab on a circuit board as a result of small amplitude oscillations. The left-hand micrograph shows the deformation of the substrate. ‘‘C’’ shows the worn surface of an elastomer slab subjected to repeated impact. Two modes are shown. In the left-hand micrograph, there is no material loss but the material is permanently deformed, which results from a compression set type of behavior. In the right-hand, there is material loss resulting from fatigue. (‘‘A’’ is from Ref. 178, ‘‘B’’ is from Ref. 179, ‘‘C’’ is from Ref. 180.)


Figure 3.27 Crack structure in delamination wear. (From Ref. 24, reprinted with permission from Elsevier Sequoia S.A.)

more easily detected in the case of rolling and impact. Because of these aspects, often the only way to determine the existence of cracks under sliding conditions is by means of microscopic examination of cross-sections through the worn surface, such as those shown in Figs. 3.25b, 3.27, 3.30, 3.31b and 3.32d. Magnifications of several hundred times or more are generally required for this. While fatigue wear and fatigue, that is structural fatigue, share a common basic concept, namely the formation and propagation of cracks, they have different characteristics. While both have an incubation period, the periods are not the same. With fatigue, the incubation period is the period of crack formation. With fatigue wear the incubation period extends beyond this. For fatigue wear, the incubation period involves the propagation of the cracks to the surface and generally the formation of loose particles. Some topological changes might be evident during this initial period of fatigue wear, including some evidence of plastic deformation. However, there is no loss of material from the surface or formation of free particles. There are also further distinctions between fatigue wear and fatigue. With fatigue, the process simply involves the formation and propagation of cracks. With fatigue wear the process is a continuous cycle of crack formation,

Figure 3.28 Conceptual illustration of the ratcheting wear mechanism. The diagram shows the accumulation of strain as a result of repeated stress cycling, which leads to fracture.


Figure 3.29 General model for surface fatigue wear. Stage I, stress cycling of surface; Stage II, nucleation of cracks in near-surface regions; Stage III, crack growth; Stage IV, crack coalescence; Stage V, crack intersection with surface; Stage VI, formation of loose particles.

propagation, and removal. For fatigue, most materials exhibit an endurance limit, that is, a stress level below which fracture will not occur. In the case of fatigue wear, there does not appear to be such a limit at least in terms of macroscopic loads and stresses. For practical load conditions, no matter how small the load or stress, sufficient rolling, sliding or impact results in the generation of fatigue wear. A further difference is that with fatigue a distinction is often made between low cycle fatigue and high cycle fatigue. A similar distinction is not made with fatigue wear. For rolling situations, there is a generally accepted empirical relationship between load and the number of revolution defining the incubation period (77,79–81). The general form of the relationship for both point and line contact situations is N1 P1n ¼ N2 P2n

ð3:29Þ

where N1 is the number of revolutions required for a load of P1 and N2 the number of revolutions required for a load of P2. For point contact situations, such as in a ball bearing, n is 3; for line contact, such as in a roller bearing, n is 10=3. Frequently this relationship is referred to as Palmgren’s equation (81,82). A more fundamental form of this equation relates stress to number of revolutions. Since according to elastic contact theory (83), the maximum stress in a point contact situation, Sm, is proportional to P1=3, the stress form of Eq. (3.29) becomes 9 9 ¼ N2 ¼ Sm N1 Sm 1 2

ð3:30Þ

Similar relationships exist for sliding and impact, as described later in this section (21,84). The progression of wear scar morphology for fatigue wear under sliding conditions was studied in Cu. (21) The sliding system consisted of a hardened steel sphere sliding back and forth across the flat surface of Cu single crystals. Boundary lubrication was used and stress levels were maintained well under the yield point of the Cu. Three stages were


Figure 3.30 Examples of cracks formed under impact conditions. (From Ref. 181, reprinted with permission from ASME.)

identified and are shown in Fig. 3.32. In the first stage, grooves and striations in the direction of sliding were the predominate feature. There was no material loss and the topography would suggest single-cycle deformation. During this stage, as sliding increased, the


Figure 3.31 Crack structure in extrusion wear. In ‘‘A’’, the surface morphology of the wear scar is shown. In ‘‘B’’, a view of the cross-section through the wear scar. (From Ref. 87, reprinted with permission from ASME.)

density or number of these grooves increased. In the second stage, damage features perpendicular to the sliding direction appeared. Again, there was no loss of material. This feature, termed crosshatching, implied something other than a single-cycle deformation mode was occurring. As sliding continues in this stage, the crosshatching became more pronounced until ultimately spalling and flaking occurred. This is the start of the third and final stage. In this stage, material loss occurs and, with continued sliding, a wear groove of increasing depth is formed. The start of the third stage was considered to be the end of the incubation period. The striations of the first stage are the result of local stress systems associated with individual asperity contact. However, the crosshatching features occur over many striations and are therefore probably associated with the overall stress system associated with the macro-geometry of the contact. This feature is also considered to be associated with the initiation and growth of subsurface cracks. Micrographs of cross-sections through the wear scar confirmed the existence of sub-surface cracks in this situation, as shown in Fig. 3.32d. In the same study, it was found that the number of cycles required to initiate the third stage could be correlated to the maximum shear stress associated with the macrogeometry. In fact, a relationship identical to Eq. (3.30) was found. This correlation is shown in Fig. 3.33. It is significant to note that the same type of correlation with stress is found in impact wear situations when the macro-stresses are within the elastic limit of the materials (84). As stated earlier, a similar correlation is found with rolling.


Figure 3.32 The morphology of the three stages of sliding fatigue wear observed in Cu. The initial stage is shown in ‘‘A’’. The intermediate stage is shown in ‘‘B’’ and the final, in ‘‘C’’.’’D’’, which is a TEM of a region below the surface of the wear scar, shows the subsurface cracks found in the final stage. (From Ref. 20, reprinted with permission from Elsevier Sequoia S.A.)

Wear scar morphology, similar to the stage three morphology observed with the Cu single crystal, and cracks have been observed in many sliding systems (23,25,76,77,85–87). While this is the case, the nature of the crack systems is frequently different. The micrographs in Figs. 3.27 and 3.31 serve to illustrate these points. Many of the topological features of the wear scars shown in these two figures are similar to those associated with



stages three Cu wear. However, it is apparent that the crack systems in each of these three cases are different. In Fig. 3.27, the cracks are near and parallel to the surface. This mode was termed delamination wear and was described in terms of dislocation behavior (25,77). In Fig. 3.31, cracks form at the base of extruded wedges or lips. This mode is sometimes referred to as extrusion wear (87). In Fig. 3.32d, it can be seen that in low stress sliding wear of Cu, the cracks had a more random orientation and extended well below the surface.


Figure 3.33 The number of cycles required to produce the second stage in the fatigue wear of Cu as a function of shear stress. (From Ref. 20.)

The crack systems found in sliding are generally different from those found under rolling and impact conditions. Figure 3.30 shows some examples of the crack systems for impact. The wear scar topography also varies with the situation, as can be seen by comparing the micrographs in Figs. 3.24, 3.27, 3.31 and 3.32. For impact and rolling, features suggestive of sliding are not evident. Also, in the case of rolling, the features tend to be coarser or larger than typically found in sliding situations. The variation in crack systems and patterns can be related to the response of materials to different stress systems. Because of this strong influence of stress on fatigue wear, it is worthwhile to consider the nature of the stress systems associated with different contact situations, prior to discussing formulations for fatigue wear. Conceptually, the stress system occurring in a wear contact can be separated into two parts. One part may be termed the macro-stress system and is related to the overall geometry or shape of the contacting members, that is, the features that relate to the apparent area of contact. The second part is the micro-stress system and this is governed by local geometry associated with the asperities. This concept is illustrated graphically in Fig. 3.34. For the macro-system, there are two general types of contact situations which are illustrated in Fig. 3.35. One is a conforming situation, such as a flat against a flat or a sphere in a socket of the same radius. The second is a nonconforming contact situation, such as a sphere against a plane, two cylinders in contact, or sphere in a socket of a larger radius. For the conforming situation, the pressure distribution across the surface is uniform and the stress level is highest on the surface, decreasing with distance from the surface. For the nonconforming case, the situation is quite different. Hertz contact theory shows that in this case the pressure is greatest in the middle of the contact and that the maximum shear stress is below the surface at a distance of approximately a third of the radius of the apparent contact area (83). It also has a value of approximately one-third of the maximum contact pressure. In this case, significant stress can occur well below


Figure 3.34 General nature of the stress field in contact situation, illustrating the relative effects of contact geometry and asperities on stress.

the surface, up to depths comparable to contact dimensions. The comparative nature of these two contact situations is illustrated in Fig. 3.36. When shear or traction is applied to the interface, the macro-stress system is modified. The modification is most significant at or near the surface since the shear decays rapidly as a function of depth (88). With m as the coefficient of friction and q(x) as the pressure distribution, mq(x) is the traction across the contact. For the case of a conforming contact, the maximum shear stress is on the surface and can be shown to be approximately qo(0.25 þ m2) 1=2, where qo is the contact pressure. For the nonconforming case, the maximum shear stress can occur either on the surface or beneath the surface, depending on the


Figure 3.35 Examples of conforming and nonconforming contacts. ‘‘A’’, a cylinder in a groove of matching radius, ‘‘B’’, a flat on a flat, and ‘‘C’’, a sphere in a spherical seat of matching radius, are examples of conforming contacts. ‘‘D’’, a cylinder in a hole of larger radius, ‘‘E’’, parallel cylinders, and ‘‘F’’, a sphere on a flat, are examples of nonconforming contacts.


Figure 3.36 Comparison of the stress fields associated with conforming and nonconforming contacts.

value of m. For nonconforming contacts, the maximum shear stress on the surface is approximately mqo, where qo is the maximum pressure. This is also the maximum shear stress if m is greater than 0.3. If m is less than 0.3, it would be below the surface and approximately 0.3qo. A consequence of this is that for a nonconforming contact situation, lubrication cannot only modify the stress level but also the stress distribution, as illustrated by the change in the location of maximum stress. The pressure distribution associated with the macro-system can effect the load distribution across the asperities, as illustrated in Fig. 3.37. Since the pressure distributions are different for conforming and nonconforming contact, the micro-stress systems for these two general types of contact will also be different. For nonconforming contacts, asperities in the center of the contact region will tend to be loaded higher than asperities near the edges of the contact region. For conforming contacts, the loading will be more uniform. While asperities have curvature, the micro-stress fields can be of two types. If the asperity is plastically deformed, the stress field will have the characteristics of a conforming contact. If elastically deformed, the stress field will have the characteristics of a nonconforming contact. When considering stress in wearing contacts, a further aspect has to be recognized. This is that wear generally changes the micro- and macro-geometrical features of the surfaces in contact. As a result, there can be changes in the two stress systems associated with the contact. The magnitude of the stresses can change as a result of changes in the real and apparent areas of contact, as well as the stress distribution. As discussed in Sec. 3.2, wear


Figure 3.37 Effects of the macro-contact stress distribution on asperity load distribution.

also tends to reduce the plasticity index, implying that asperity deformations become more elastic with wear (37). Wear will also cause an initial nonconforming contact to become a conforming contact, changing the nature of the macro-stress system and increasing the apparent area of contact, as illustrated in Fig. 3.38. Different features of the wear can be related to these two stress systems. For example, grooving and striations in the direction of sliding can be related to the micro-stress. Also, the general nature of the cracks and crack system can be related to these stress systems. The effect of the macro-stress system on crack formation, illustrated in Fig. 3.39, is an example of this. Also, differences between the wear scars, which are shown in Figs. 3.24, 3.27 and 3.30–3.32, can be related to the stress conditions of the tests. In the examples of sliding that are shown in Figs. 3.27 and 3.31 the contacts were conforming, that is, flat-against-flat. They were also unlubricated and as a result the coefficient of friction, m, was high. In these cases, the significant stress would be confined to a small region near the surface, essentially at the asperity level and the micro-stress system would be the predominate system. In these cases near-surface cracking is found, as well as surface features related to asperity contact. In the rolling contacts, the macro-geometry was nonconforming and there was negligible friction and traction. The initial geometry in the experiments with Cu was also nonconforming and the tests were performed with lubrication, which resulted in a low value for m. In this case, the nonconforming nature of the contact would remain until the end of the incubation period. At this point, material loss would result in a change to a conforming contact. In these two situations, significant stresses would occur well beyond that near-surface region and the macro-stress would be significant. For the sliding wear of Cu, as shown in those figures, the micro-stress system would become more significant beyond the incubation period, since the geometry would then become conforming. Also, the average stress level would decrease as a result of increasing contact area. For impact the contacts were initially nonconforming and approach conformity with wear. In these situations, wear behavior is related to the


Figure 3.38 The changing nature of the contact situation that occurs in the case of a hard steel sphere sliding against a soft copper flat.

macro-stress system and significant stresses occur well below the surface (75). In these three cases, rolling, impact and low-stress sliding, sub-surface cracking is found and damage related to asperity contact is not evident, except for the initial stages of sliding wear. The main features of several of the models proposed for fatigue wear after the incubation period can be illustrated by the consideration of an idealized and simple model. Assume that the sliding system can be approximated by a smooth, flat surface of area, Aa, sliding against a flat, rough surface, which has by an exponential distribution of asperities of different heights and a tip radius of b. Further, assume that the wear is confined to the smooth flat surface. This situation is shown in Fig. 3.40. The key assumption in these models is that the formation of a fatigue wear particle can be described by Wohler’s equation for fatigue (89), namely, t S0 Nf ¼ ð3:31Þ S In this equation, Nf is the number of cycles to failure at a stress level of S and S0 is the stress level required to produce failure in a single stress cycle. Both t and S0 are material dependent. On the macro-scale, the contact situation considered is a conforming one. Hence, the principal stress system will be associated with the asperity contact conditions. In a fatigue wear situation, any initial plastic loading conditions would modify asperity geometry so that the material would respond elastically in subsequent load cycles. Consequently, it is generally assumed for fatigue wear that the asperity contacts can be described by elastic contact theory. In the assumed situation, the asperity contacts can be approximated by a sphere pressed against a flat surface, a situation that is covered by Hertzian contact theory (83). The principal equations governing this situation are: qo ¼ 0:58P 01=3 E 2=3 b2=3

ð3:32Þ

a0 ¼ 0:91P 01=3 b1=3 E 1=3

ð3:33Þ

1 v1 1 v2 E ¼ þ E1 E2

ð3:34Þ


Figure 3.39 Examples of the influence of the nature of the stress system on crack formation. (From Ref. 63.)

where qo is the maximum contact pressure at the asperity contact, a0 , the radius of the contact spot, P0 , the load on the asperity, and E’s and n’s, the Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio for the two materials in contact. Assuming that the load is uniformily distributed


Figure 3.40 Contact situation between a smooth surface and a rough surface, used in the development of a fatigue wear model. It is assumed that the rough surface can be characterized by an asperity distribution of different heights but the same tip radius.

over the asperities, P0 ¼

P FAa

ð3:35Þ

where P is the load between the two surfaces and F is the number of asperities per unit area in contact at load P. While shear stress is frequently related to fatigue behavior, some studies have indicated that, in the case of wear, it can be correlated with the maximum tensile stress, which occurs at the leading edge of the contact area (90). This is not significant in the development of the model since both are proportional to the maximum contact pressure. The maximum shear stress is either mqo or 0.31qo with the former occurring at the interface and the latter at a distance of approximately 0.3a0 below the asperity tip. The maximum tensile stress is approximately 0.5mqo. All of these cases can be covered by the following relationship: S ¼ Gq0

ð3:36Þ

In this form, G can be viewed as an empirically determined coefficient, which is material dependent. Ultimately, a zone of the surface will experience enough loading cycles so that a free particle will form. Assuming that the dimensions of this particle can be approximated by the dimensions of the region of significant stress under the contact, the volume of the fragment may be estimated. This may be approximated as a spherical shell of diameter 2a0 and depth 0.3a0 . In that case it can be shown that the volume of the wear fragment, v0 , is given by v0 ¼

0:36P 0 b E

ð3:37Þ

For a sliding distance of L the number of stress cycles the surface will experience is given by LF1=2. The number of times a wear fragment will form during this amount of sliding is, therefore, LF1=2=Nf and the total volume, V, that is lost is given by V¼

v0 F3=2 Aa L Nf

ð3:38Þ

Using the relationships developed for flat rough surfaces, it can be shown that for an exponential distribution of asperity heights with a standard deviation of s, F is given by the


following equation (37): 3 P F¼ 4 E b1=2 s3=2

! ð3:39Þ

Substituting in Eq. (3.38) and reducing, the following equation is obtained: V ¼ OMGGt P1:5 L

ð3:40Þ

O ¼ 0:42 0:64t

ð3:41Þ

where

M¼

E

ðt1:5Þ=3

ð3:42Þ

t

S 00 sðt1:5Þ=2

G¼

t=3

Aa bðt1:5Þ=2

ð3:43Þ

This simple model provides a general identification of the typical parameters, which influence fatigue wear. Fatigue parameters of the material are one type of parameter which affect fatigue wear, as illustrated by t and S0 in the wear equation. In addition several of what might be termed mechanical parameters of the system are also involved. These are the geometrical features of the surfaces (roughness and apparent area of contact), load, elastic constants of the materials (Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio), and the coefficient of friction of the material pair. The significance of individual parameters is influenced by the overall fatigue behavior of the material, as illustrated by the effect of t, the exponent of Wohler’s equation, on exponents associated with these parameters. This overriding influence of the fatigue behavior can be illustrated with the present model by noting that in fatigue studies values of t as low as 2 and in excess of 20 have been found for different materials (78,90). While the general nature of this equation for fatigue wear does not change with the nature of the asperity distribution, the exponents can change. For example, if a uniform distribution is assumed, the following is obtained: V ¼ OMGGt Pð1þt=3Þ L

ð3:44Þ

O ¼ 0:36 0:58t

ð3:45Þ

M¼

G¼

E ð2t=31Þ S0t

ð3:46Þ

1 ðt=30:5Þ

F

t=3

Aa bð2t=31Þ

ð3:47Þ

As illustrated by these results, different fatigue relationships and assumptions regarding asperity loading and distributions can affect the dependency on load. Other models for fatigue wear and experimental data indicate that the load dependency can generally be represented by a power relationship, Pn. While some models for fatigue wear result in values of n near 1 for specific conditions, significantly larger values, for example, 3 or larger are also possible (26,27,78,85,86,91,92). Equations (3.40) and (3.44) illustrate this.


This range of n values is consistent with empirical observations. For example, the wear test data for bainitic steels, shown in Fig. 3.41, indicate a range of 2–6 for n. In studies by the author values in the range of > 1 to < 4 have been observed, as well (93). On the other hand, a near-linear relationship was found in some studies of polymer wear (94). Theoretical models and empirical observations suggest that the general form for fatigue-like repeated-cycle deformation wear is V ¼ KPn S;

n1

ð3:48Þ

where S is the distance of sliding. For rolling and impact, S can be replaced by number of impacts or revolutions. As can be inferred by comparison with Eqs. (3.40) and (3.44), K depends on a range of material and contact parameters, as well as the type of fatigue process, but not directly on hardness. As a result, there are two significant differences between this equation and the ones for adhesive, Eq. (3.7), and single-cycle deformation wear, Eq. (3.25). One is that the relationship for repeated-cycle deformation does not contain an explicit dependency on hardness as the ones for adhesive and single-cycle deformation wear. The other is that the dependency on load is different. For adhesion and single-cycle deformation, there is a linear relationship, while for repeated-cycle deformation, it is generally non-linear. Models and empirical information indicate that n is a function of materials, wear process, and asperity distribution.

Figure 3.41 The effect of load on the unlubricated sliding wear of several bainitic steels. (From Ref. 96.)


The dependency of fatigue wear on the radius of the asperity tip, b, was investigated for a variety of materials (95). In general, a high-order dependency on b was found. Some of the data are shown in Fig. 3.42. These data suggest that wear rate is proportional to b6 or b5 for several of the system investigated. In terms of the Wohler-based models, this implies a value of the order of 10 for t, which is similar to the exponents relating stress and incubation cycles, as illustrated by Eq. (3.30). More fundamental approaches to fatigue wear have also been proposed, such as dislocation theory (26,27,96), and fracture mechanics (85,86). These models, while indicating some of the underlying features and concerns in fatigue wear, have not been as useful in practice, as the models or concepts based on more simple engineering concepts for fatigue or using Eq. (3.44) as an empirical relationship. However, such concepts can provide some insight into the relative behavior of different materials with respect to this type of wear. Because of the incubation period of fatigue-like repeated-cycle deformation mechanisms, these mechanisms tend not to be significant in the early stages of wear or early life of a component. Adhesive and single-cycle deformation mechanisms tend to be more significant in these. Fatigue-like mechanisms become more significant and often are the dominant mechanisms in later stages of wear associated with long-term behavior. The severity of the wear resulting from repeated-cycle deformation mechanisms tend to be proportional to (stress=strength parameter) n. The exponent is typically greater than 1 and can be high, for example, in the range of 10. However, the strength parameter is generally something other than hardness.

Figure 3.42 Effect of asperity radius on initial wear rate of several materials sliding against an unlubricated mild steel surface. (From Ref. 22.)


3.5. OXIDATIVE WEAR PROCESSES The basic concept for these processes is that wear occurs by the continuous removal of oxide layers as a result of sliding contact between asperities. In between contacts, the oxide regrows on these denuded areas of the surface and is again removed with subsequent asperity engagement. Characteristic of such processes is the formation of a glassy-like layer on the surface and subsequent appearance of fractures and denuded regions in the layer (97,98). Examples of this are shown in Fig. 3.43. Under these conditions, the wear rate is generally low and fine wear particles of oxides are observed. A simple model for metals can be used to describe the basic elements of oxidative wear (99,100). The implicit assumption of the model is that the weakest point is at the interface between the substrate and the oxide and that as the result of sliding engagement the oxide layer flakes off at the interface, much like a coating or plating with poor adhesion. The overall sequence is shown in Fig. 3.44. It is assumed that the real area of contact can be represented as a uniform array of circular junctions as shown in Fig. 3.45. The wear rate associated with a junction, wi, is given by wi ¼

pa2 d 2a

ð3:49Þ

wi ¼

pad 2

ð3:50Þ

where 2a is the diameter of the circular junction and d is the thickness of the oxide film. The wear rate of the surface would then be w¼

pnad 2

ð3:51Þ

where n is the number of junctions. Assume that the growth of the oxide follows a logarithmic law, which is generally true for the initial growth on clean metal surfaces (99). In this case, the thickness, d, is given by the following equation: t d ¼ b ln þ 1 ð3:52Þ t where t is time and b and t are parameters associated with the kinetics of the oxidation process. b is a constant dependent on material and temperature and t is a constant dependent on material. Assuming that each time a junction is formed, the oxide layer is removed, t would be the average time it takes for a junction to reform. If S is the average spacing between junctions, t¼

S v

ð3:53Þ

where v is the sliding velocity. For many sliding situations, this relationship may be simplified by noting that t=t is frequently less than 1. For example, for the case of iron, t is in the range of seconds. For a sliding speed of 0.01 in.=s and asperity spacing of 0.002 in., t is less than 1 s. Hence, for sliding Eq. (3.52) can be written as d

bt t


ð3:54Þ

Figure 3.43 Examples of sliding wear surfaces after the formation of an oxide layer. In ‘‘A’’, the layer appears continuous and uniform. In ‘‘B’’ and ‘‘C’’, the layers are cracked and fractured. ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘C’’ are for self-mated unlubricated fretting between Incone1 specimens at elevated temperature, 540 C and 700 C, respectively. ‘‘B’’ shows the appearance of the wear scar on a steel pin after sliding on an unlubricated molybdenum disk. (‘‘A’’ and ‘‘C’’, from Ref. 182; ‘‘B’’, from Ref. A107; reprinted with permission from ASME.)


Figure 3.44 Model for oxidative wear.

Figure 3.45 Junction array used with model for oxidative wear.


or d¼

bS vt

ð3:55Þ

The average spacing of junctions, S, is given by 1=2 Aa S¼ n

ð3:56Þ

where Aa is the apparent area of contact. Assume that the oxide layer is too thin to significantly affect the mechanical properties of the surface and consequently the contact situation. Assuming that the asperities are plastically deformed, the real area of contact is equal to the load, P, divided by the penetration hardness of the softer material, p. Consequently, n¼

P pa2 p

ð3:57Þ

Utilizing these relationships, it can be shown that w¼

b 2tv

pAa P 1=2 p

ð3:58Þ

pAa P 1=2 L p

ð3:59Þ

or W¼

b 2tv

where W is the volume of wear and L is the distance of sliding. The same equation would result if one did not assume that the oxide is always removed at each junction formation. If K is the probability that the rupture of a junction would result in the formation of a wear particle, the average time for oxide growth would be K1(S=v) and the K’s would cancel in the final expression. Simply, this means that frequent removal of a thin oxide layer is equivalent to infrequent removal of thick oxide layer. Other assumptions regarding the real area of contact can modify the dependencies on mechanical parameters. For example, a refined version of this model, which assumes that the surface topography is described as a Gaussian distribution of conical asperities, results in the following equation for W (101): 0 1 p bAa @ fðxÞ A W¼ ð3:60Þ 1 Rx 4 tn 2x 0 fðxÞdx x0

where fðxÞ ¼

x¼

1 ð2pÞ

2

1=2

ex =2

c s


ð3:61Þ

ð3:62Þ

C is the separation of the center lines of the surfaces and s is the composite surface roughness for the surfaces. xo is the value of x corresponding to the separation when there is initial contact. As can be seen by comparison of the two equations for W, the dependencies on the reaction parameters and speed remained the same but the dependencies on apparent area of contact, load, and hardness changed. Analysis of the term in the bracket shows that while x depends on both load and roughness, its value is almost independent of load, hardness, and roughness (101). This does not mean, however, that the wear is independent of these parameters. As was stated previously, b is a function of temperature. This implies that b is also a function of load, hardness, and sliding speed. In general, b is related to temperature by means of an Arrhenius type of relationship, namely, b ¼ bo eQo =RT

ð3:63Þ

where bo is the Arrhenius constant for the reaction, Qo is the activation energy associated with the oxide, R is the gas constant, and T is the temperature of the surface. On the basis of a simple model for asperity temperature (102), T can be related to P, p and n by the following: T ¼ T0 þ

mP n 4Jðk1 þ k2 Þa

ð3:64Þ

where T0 is the nominal temperature of the surface; m, the coefficient of friction; P, the load on the junction; a, the radius of the junction; J, Joule’s constant; the k’s are the thermal conductivities of the two bodies. P and a are functions of P, p, and the asperity distribution as illustrated by Eq. (3.57). (See Sec. 3.6 for a discussion of frictional heating and alternate equations for T.) This simple model for oxidative wear indicates the various factors or parameters of a tribosystem that can influence these types of mechanisms. These processes are dependent on the chemical nature of the surface, reaction kinetics, mechanical and thermal properties of the materials, micro- and macro-geometrical features of the two surfaces, and operating conditions, that is, load, speed, and environment. It has been shown that a similar model can be used to describe some of the general trends observed for cases of dry, sliding wear of steel surfaces (98,103,104). In this model, it is assumed that there is a thin layer of oxide on the surface at all times. Since the growth rate on clean surfaces and on oxidized surfaces tend to be different, this model uses a different relationship for oxide growth. Growth on oxide layers tends to follow a parabolic relationship rather than a logarithmic one. As a result, this model uses the following equation rather than Eq. (3.52): m2 ¼ bt

ð3:65Þ

where m is the amount oxygen a unit area of surface has taken up in time t. m is related to oxide thickness by the following equation: m ¼ f r0 d

ð3:66Þ

r0 is the density of the oxide and f is the fraction of the oxide that is oxygen. b again is described in terms of an Arrhenius relationship. This model allows the possibility of multiple engagements before a wear particle is formed by assuming that a critical oxide thickness, dc, is required for fracture to occur.


Figure 3.46 Wear rate as a function of load for unlubricated sliding between self-mated steel. The transitions in oxide formation are also shown. (From Ref. 104, reprinted with permission from ASME.)

This model resulted in the following equation for wear rate: w¼

2P3=2 b0 eQ0 =RT p1=2 np3=2 f 2 dc2 r0 n1=2

ð3:67Þ

In using this model to explain the behavior of wear rates observed in dry sliding experiments with steels, it is necessary to make additional assumptions, primarily regarding n and dc. Dry sliding data for EN8 steel are shown in Fig. 3.46. As can be seen in the figure, transitions in wear rate were found to correlate with the occurrence of different oxides. Oxidation studies have shown that there are three distinct regions of oxide growth with different activation energies (105). These regions are described in Table 3.6. Regression analysis of that data using this model indicated that it was necessary to assume that n and dc were functions of load (104). This is shown in Fig. 3.47 for one sliding speed. It can be seen that speed and the region of oxidation affect the relationships between these parameters and load. A similar regression analysis of dry sliding data for EN31 was also done. These data are shown in Fig. 3.48. In this case, it was found that a correlation existed between these parameters, T, and the state of oxidation of the surface, that is, the mixture of Fe2O3 and Fe3O4. These correlations are shown in Fig. 3.49 (98). These results imply that n, dc, T and w are interrelated and characteristic of a state of oxidation.


Table 3.6 Oxidation Kinetics of Steel Surfaces Temperature ( C)

Oxide

b0 (kg2=m4s)a

T < 45 45 < T < 600

Fe2O3 Fe2O3 Fe3O4 Fe2O3 Fe3O4 FeO

1016 103

208 0.96

108

210

600 < T

Q0 (kJ=mole)

Q0

Dm2 ¼ b0 eRT Symbols: Dm, mass oxygen taken up per unit time; R, gas constant. a Determined by regression analysis of wear data. Source: Ref. 104.

The state of oxidation is determined by the operating conditions and the heat flow characteristics of the interface which is affected by the properties of the oxide. The regression analysis used in these studies involved the simultaneous satisfaction of wear and heat flow conditions. Oxidative wear is primarily a sliding wear mechanism. It generally does not occur with lubrication. Since this mechanism is related to the chemical reactivity, it is more significant with metals than other materials. However, oxidative wear processes have been found to occur with ceramics, as well (106). It is important to recognize that not all unlubricated sliding situations with metals involve oxidative wear processes. For example, in

Figure 3.47 Variation in the number of junctions and critical oxide thickness as a function of load for unlubricated sliding between self-mated steel. The transitions in oxide formation are also shown. (From Ref. 104, reprinted with permission from ASME.)


Figure 3.48 Example of the variation in wear rate with load for unlubricated sliding between self-mated steel. (From Ref. 98 reprinted with permission from ASM International.)

the wear study using EN31, discussed previously, oxidative wear did not occur for loads under 4 N. It is also possible that under some loading conditions oxidative wear processes may not be significant, even though oxidation occurs, because the dominant wear process involves failure underneath the oxide layer.

Figure 3.49 Variation of oxide thickness, TH, number of junctions, N, and junction temperature, TF, as a function of the percentage of Fe3O4 in the wear debris. Data are for unlubricated sliding between self-mated steel. (From Ref. 98, reprinted with permission from ASM International.)


The formation of oxides on a metal surface tends to reduce the wear. For example, in unlubricated sliding experiments with Cu, the author has observed an order of magnitude or more reduction in wear rate with the development of a Cu oxide on the surface. However, this is not always the case. A two order of magnitude increase in the wear rate of some steels has been observed in air over that obtained in vacuum (107). It should be recognized that the term oxidation is used to imply any chemical reaction altering the composition of the surface. It is not limited to effects from exposure to oxygen, though this is a very common one in many engineering applications. Alternate terms for oxidative wear are chemical wear and corrosive wear. 3.6. THERMAL WEAR PROCESSES Thermal wear processes are those processes in which the primary cause of the wear is directly related to frictional and hysteretic heating as a result of relative motion. For most materials, thermal wear processes are generally limited to situations involving frictional heating as a result of relative sliding. However, with viscoelastic materials, thermal wear can occur as a result of hysteretic heating that is associated with any type of motion. Melting, thermal cracking, and thermal mounding or thermoelastic instability (TEI) are the most common forms of these processes but not the only ones. For example, evaporation and sublimation are other forms of thermal wear processes. All of these processes are related to the surface and near-surface temperature distributions that arise as a result of heating. These are usually characterized in terms of two temperatures. One temperature is the nominal temperature of the surface. The other is the maximum temperature at the asperity tips or junctions, which is called the flash temperature. With frictional heating the flash temperature is greater than the surface temperature. It can be several hundreds of degrees or more higher than the surface temperature and can reach the order of a few thousand degrees centigrade under some circumstances. Also, it is often the more important of the two. Generally, these two temperatures are computed using different models (98,108,109). The linear heat conduction models used for a pin sliding on a disk shown in Figs. 3.50 and 3.51 illustrate this (109).

Figure 3.50 Model used for the bulk temperature increase of the surface. lb is defined as the equivalent linear diffusion distance for bulk heating. It is the effective distance from the interface to a region that can be considered as a heat sink.


Figure 3.51 Model used for determining flash temperature. lf is defined as the equivalent linear diffusion distance for flash heating. It is the effective distance from the junction interface to a region that can be considered as a heat sink.

The model for the bulk temperature is based on the apparent area of contact as shown in Fig. 3.50. The heat generated per unit area per unit time is given by q¼

mPn Aa

ð3:68Þ

where m is the coefficient of friction; P, the load; Aa, the apparent area of contact; n, is the sliding velocity. The model assumes that this is shared between the two bodies, a fraction, a, going into the pin and (1 a) going into the disk. The heat flow into the pin and disk is different and as a result two different models are used to describe the temperature distribution in these bodies. The pin experiences a continual source of heat and the heat flow is described by the first law of heat flow. The disk is described by time-dependent equations for heat flow for the injection of heat. The quantity of heat that is injected is 2(1 a) qro=n. For self-mated materials, this model results in the following equation for the surface temperature, Ts (109). Ts ¼ T0 þ 2abmT Fp P

ð3:69Þ

where a¼

2 4 þ bðpFp Þ1=2

ð3:70Þ

ap k

ð3:71Þ

¼ P P Aa p

ð3:72Þ

T ¼


Fp ¼

r0 n 2a

ð3:73Þ

In these equations, p is the hardness, k is the thermal conductivity, and a is the thermal diffusivity. Fp is the Peclet Number. Essentially this is the ratio of the time it takes for the temperature to reach a maximum at a depth of half the width of the contact to the time it takes for the heat source to move half the contact width. For a stationary heat source the Peclet Number is 0. For Peclet Numbers below 0.1, stable temperature distributions are established in both bodies during the time of contact. As a result the heat flow into both the pin and the disk can be considered as from a stationary source. In this case, the heat is uniformly divided between the two bodies, a is 0.5. For Peclet Numbers above 0.1, the thermal distribution in the disk is not stabilized during the contact time and as a result more heat tends to flow into the disk. For Peclet Numbers above 100, almost all the heat flows into the disk. For intermediate values, the portion of the heat going into the disk increases with increasing speed, that is increasing Peclet values. b in these equations is a dimensionless linearization factor introduced to account for the fact that the heat flow is three-dimensional, not linearly as assumed by the model. It is essentially the ratio of the heat diffusion distance into the surface to ro. The heat diffusion distance is nominally the depth below the surface where there is no increase in temperature. For steel b has been found to be approximately 6 (109). Assuming that the lateral diffusion of the heat is proportional to thermal diffusivity, its value for other materials can be approximated by b¼

5:5 105 m2 a s

ð3:74Þ

The model for the flash temperature is based on the real area of contact, as illustrated in Fig. 3.51. In this case, both surfaces are described by time-dependent heat flow equations. For self-mated materials, the model results in the following equations for the flash temperature, Tf: ra Tf ¼ Ts þ mT bFp ð3:75Þ r0 Tf ¼ Ts þ

1=2 mT bFp P n1=2

ð3:76Þ

Equation (3.76) results from the additional assumptions that the asperities are plastically deformed, that is, that the real area of contact is P=p. In this equation, n is the number of junctions and can be estimated by the following (109): 2 r0 Þ þ 1 n¼ Pð1 P ra

ð3:77Þ

It has been found that changes in the real area of contact primarily result from changes in the number of junctions formed and not from changes in size of the junctions (37,38,110– 114). Studies have shown that the typical radius of junctions is of the order of 105–106 m

The time it takes for the temperature to reach a maximum at a depth h is (h2=a).


Table 3.7

Temperature Equations for Frictional Heating

a

Surface temperature, Ts Stationary heat source surface (1) Ts ¼ To þ 2as bmT1 Fp1 P nro Fp1 2a 1

Moving heat source surface (2) 4ð1 as Þm Ts ¼ To þ T2 Fp2 P p1=2 2 as ¼ 4þp1=2

T 1 T 2

F p1 1=2 Fp 2

Flash temperature, Tf General

Tf ¼ TB þ 2af mT1 b2 rra0 Fp1 a1 k1 af ¼ a1 k1 þ a2 k2 For AA ¼ P=p 1=2 Fp1 2af mT1 b1 P Tf ¼ TB þ n1=2 2 n ¼ rr0a Pð1 PÞ þ 1 ¼ P P T ¼ ap K AA p 5:5 105 m2 =s gr0 b¼ Fp ¼ 2a a

Symbols: P, load; p, hardness of softer surface; a, thermal diffusivity; k, thermal conductivity; AA, apparent area of contact; n, sliding velocity; m, coefficient of friction; r0, radius of apparent contact area; ra, radius of junctions (approximately 105 m; n, number of junctions; Fp, Peclet Number. a Based on the Lim=Ashby temperature relationships for self-mated materials (Ref. 109).

but can be much larger and smaller in some circumstances (110–114). For typical situations, a nominal value of 105 m is often used for thermal calculations (109). Generalized forms of the equations for surface and flash temperatures are given in Table 3.7. In this table, an equivalent Peclet Number for the stationary heat source surface, F*p, is defined for consistency. It can be seen that the distribution of heat or the heat partition between the surfaces is affected by differences in thermal properties between the two surfaces. Oxide and other layers on surfaces can also have a significant effect on frictional heating and the apparent conductivity of a surface. This is shown by the following equation for the effective value of the thermal conductivity of a surface with a thin layer on it (109): ke ¼

ks kl ð1 z=bra Þkl þ ðz=bra Þks

ð3:78Þ

ke is the effective conductivity; ks is the conductivity of the substrate; kl is the conductivity of the layer; and Z is the thickness of the layer.


Actual temperatures tend to be lower than those predicted by these equations, primarily because heat can be dissipated by other mechanisms, such as convection, radiation, and cooling by lubricants. Such effects, particularly cooling by lubricants, can result in significantly lower temperatures. Temperature increases under lubricated conditions are generally negligible, except for thermoelastic instability. Instead of determining the heat partition at the interface, that is, a and (1 a), the actual temperature can be determined by using the values obtained for each surface, assuming that all the heat goes into that surface. It has been shown that 1 1 1 ¼ þ T T1 T2

ð3:79Þ

T 1 and T 2 are the temperatures obtained for surfaces 1 and 2, assuming all the heat goes into that surface; T is the actual surface temperature (115). Most thermal wear processes can be grouped into three general types. One group is comprised of those processes, which are simply related to the maximum temperature. Melting, softening, evaporation and sublimation would be examples of this type. The second group is comprised of those processes, which are directly related to thermal gradients. Thermal fatigue and thermal cracking are examples of this type. Those processes, which result from thermoelastic instability, comprise the last group. All these types of processes require significant temperature rise. How high a rise is significant depends on the materials and mechanism. For example, for the first type of mechanism, a rise of less than 100 C can be significant for some polymers, while a rise in excess of a 1500 C is required for melting of metals and intermediate temperatures for the other types of mechanisms. With the first type of thermal mechanisms, wear scars typically exhibit features that are suggestive of melting, liquid flow, and thermal degradation. Examples of these features are shown in Fig. 3.52. The following Eq. (3.80), is one proposed for melt wear of a pin sliding against a disk (109). The model is illustrated in Fig. 3.53. It is based on a linearization model for heat flow from a stationary source, similar to the one used to develop Eq. (3.68). It assumes that a portion of the heat is conducted through the pin, maintaining the temperature differential, and a portion of the heat is absorbed as latent heat into the melted layer. The depth rate of wear h˙ (units of length per unit time) is given by k _h ¼ K F0 Þ ðTm T0 Þ ð3:80Þ ½ð2aT bmP p br0 L In this equation, L is the latent heat for melting and Tm is the melting temperature. F0 p has the same form as the Peclet Number and is the defined as (2r0n=apin) (see Table 3.7). K is the fraction of the molten layer that is lost from the contact per unit time. The corresponding equation for flash temperature melting is Eq. (3.81). h_ ¼ K

k ra F0p ðTm T0 Þ 2af T bm bra L r0

ð3:81Þ

Noting that F0 p is equal to the Peclet Number for the junction contact, nra=a, times (ro=ra), this equation can be rewritten as k h_ ¼ K ð3:82Þ ½ð2af T bm Fp Þ ðTm T0 Þ bra L where Fp is the Peclet Number for the junctions.


Figure 3.52 Examples of wear scars from situations in which melting has occurred. ‘‘A’’ shows the worn surface of an unfilled polymer, where melting has taken place as a result of sliding. Regions of melting are the large patches, such as the one indicated by the arrow. ‘‘B’’ also shows a polymer wear scar where the melting resulted from sliding. ‘‘C’’ shows a diamond drag bit on which the diamonds have been burned and flattened in an abrasive wear situation. ‘‘D’’ shows the worn surface of a polymer, where melting and charring has occurred as a result of repeated impacts. (‘‘A’’ is from Ref. 183, ‘‘B’’ is from Ref. 184, ‘‘C’’ is from Ref. 185, and ‘‘D’’ is from Ref. 186, ‘‘B’’, and ‘‘C’’ reprinted with permission from ASME.)

The second class of thermal wear mechanism is mechanisms resulting from the thermal fluctuation, DT, caused by frictional heating. In some materials fracture can take place if DT or the thermal strain, eT, is large enough. More generally, repeated cycles of DT can result in the nucleation and propagation of cracks, that is thermal fatigue. As with most fatigue wear processes, these processes can be described by a power law relationship, such as, _ / en W T


ð3:83Þ

Figure 3.53 Model used for surface melting. lb is defined as the equivalent linear diffusion distance for bulk heating. It is the effective distance from the interface to a region that can be considered as a heat sink.

or _ / sn W T

ð3:84Þ

˙ is wear rate. The exponent is generally 1 sT is the corresponding thermal stress and W or greater and can be large, for example, the order of 10. There is a wide range in the appearance of wear scars produced by this type of mechanism. Figures 3.54 and 3.55 show examples of wear scars resulting from thermal fracture and fatigue. A model has been proposed for the type of thermal wear of ceramics illustrated in Fig. 3.55. (116) This model assumes that there are micro-cracks in the ceramic and that the severe wear shown in Fig. 3.55B results from the growth of these cracks. With this model, it is shown that magnitude of the wear rate in this region can be correlated with a thermal severity factor, which is the ratio of the temperature fluctuation, DT, to the thermal shock resistance of the material, DTs. This is shown in Fig. 3.56. Analysis of these data results in the following approximate relationship between this factor, TS, and wear rate: _ / TS8 W

ð3:85Þ

The limited data in the mild region suggest a similar relationship with a much lower exponent. In the model, the following equation for TS, where ke is the effective conductivity of the contact, is developed: TS ¼

mPn DTS ke r0

ð3:86Þ

In the model, it is assumed that for crack growth, the following condition, based on linear elastic fracture theory, must be satisfied: p ffiffiffiffiffiffi 2 1:12sT pd KLC ð3:87Þ d is the initial size of the crack and KLC is the fracture toughness of the material. It also


Figure 3.54 Examples of thermal cracks and thermal fatigue as a result of sliding. ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B’’ are on the worn surfaces of metal seals. ‘‘C’’, ‘‘D’’, ‘‘E’’, and ‘‘F’’ are wear scars on metal train wheels. (‘‘A’’ is from Ref. 117, ‘‘B’’ is from Ref. 187, ‘‘C’’–‘‘F’’ from Ref. 188, reprinted with permission from Elsevier Sequoia S.A.)


Figure 3.55 Examples of thermal wear scars on ceramics. The micrographs show the appearance of a wear scar on the zirconia specimen after sliding against an unlubricated alumina ball at two different speeds. ‘‘A’’ is 0.15 m=s and ‘‘B’’ is 0.40 m=s. (From Ref. 116, reprinted with permission from Elsevier Sequoia S.A.)

assumes the following relationships for sT and DT: El sT ¼ DT 1Z DT ¼

mPn r0 ke

ð3:88Þ ð3:89Þ

E is Young’s Modulus; l, the coefficient of thermal expansion; Z, is Poisson’s ratio. It is also assumed that KLC and DTs are related by the following equation: DTs ¼ DTs0 þ

cð1 ZÞKLC pffiffiffiffiffiffi El 2 pd

ð3:90Þ

In this equation, DTs0 is an offset value and c is the proportionality constant.

Figure 3.56 Wear rate as a function of the thermal severity number, TS. (From Ref. 116, reprinted with permission from Elsevier Sequoia S.A.)


The remaining class of thermal wear mechanisms is that associated with thermoelastic instability. The acronym TEI and the term, thermal mounding, are other names used for these processes. These processes essentially involve the collapse of the real area of contact to a few localized areas as a result of localized thermal expansion (117). These areas are referred to as hot spots or patches. Once formed, these sites can initiate other forms of wear, including other forms of thermal wear. The minimum number of hot spots is the minimum number required for mechanical stability, which in some cases can be as little as one. While not limited to these situations, TEI wear processes are often significant in the wear behavior of seals, electrical brushes, and brakes (28,108). In addition to wear, TEI processes can directly cause leakage in seals as a result of increased separation between surfaces. Wear scars associated with thermoelastic instability tend to exhibit localized heataffected and thermally distressed areas, that is, hot spots or patches. Examples of such wear scars are shown in Fig. 3.57. The following scenario describes the evolution of these hot spots. Assume that as a result of a nonuniform temperature distribution or nonhomogeneity in thermal properties, a region or regions in the apparent contact area begins to bulge above the mean level of the surface. As a result of this tendency, these areas will absorb more heat and experience increased wear. If conditions are such that the increase in heat is dissipated fast enough and the differential wear rate is large enough, the bulge will not form and conditions will tend to become stable and more uniform across the contact. However, if the increase in heat results in still higher local temperature and the increased wear rate is not high enough, the contact will become unstable. A bulge will form and continue to grow, until contact between the surfaces is limited to those regions. It has been found that the onset of this unstable behavior can be related to speed. There is a critical speed, n, above which a contact becomes unstable and thermal bulges or patches will form and below which they do not form. Unlike other types of thermal wear processes, which generally do not occur under lubricated conditions, TEI can occur under lubricated conditions. While the local collapse of a fluid film can lead to TEI behavior, less severe perturbations to the lubricant film can also cause the formation of thermal patches as a result of changes in viscous heating in the fluid (118,119). Studies have indicated that stable arrangements or groups of hot patches can occur, each with their own critical speed. While stable, these groups are not necessarily stationary. For example, with seals, hot patches have been found to slowly precess around the seal (120). The critical speeds for the formation of these groups depend on the size and geometry of the contacting members. In addition to these factors, n is also a function of the relative conductivity of the surfaces, thermal and mechanical properties of the surface, wear, and lubricant properties but not directly of load. The following two equations have been obtained for n. Equation (3.91) is for an unlubricated system and Eq. (3.92) for a lubricated system (117,118). Both are based on some limiting assumptions: no wear; a nonconductive, flat and rigid counterface; simple cup face seal configuration. However, they do provide some insight concerning the significance of some parameters affecting TEI behavior 4pk Elmw 2pz k 1=2 n ¼ w gl n ¼

ð3:91Þ ð3:92Þ

In both equations, w is the spacing between the hot patches. z is the mean film thickness and g is the viscosity of the lubricant, respectively. The lowest critical speed would occur for the


Figure 3.57 Examples of wear scars resulting from thermoelastic instability, TEI. The examples are from seals used in different applications. ‘‘A’’–‘‘D’’ are metal seals. ‘‘E’’ and ‘‘F’’ are carbon seals. The localized regions of damage and discoloration are the result of thermoelastic instability. (From Ref. 189, reprinted with permission from Elsevier Sequoia S.A.)

largest spacing between hot patches possible. For the cup configuration assumed by these models, this would be the circumference of the cup. The effects of wear and counterface conductivity on the value of n are significant. The modeling results shown in Figs. 3.58, 3.59, 3.60, and 3.61 illustrate their significance. The effect of counterface conductivity has been modeled for a cup seal configuration (120). The results of this analysis are shown in Figs. 3.58 and 3.59. In Fig. 3.58, this effect is demonstrated as a function of the ratio of conductivities of the two surfaces. In Fig. 3.59,


Figure 3.58 Variation of the critical disturbance velocity for a less conductive body sliding against a more conductive body. The properties of both bodies were assumed to be aluminum with the exception that the less conductive body was assumed to have a hypothetical reduced conductivity. (From Ref. 117, reprinted with permission from Elsevier Sequoia S.A.)

Figure 3.59 Effect of the thickness of a thin glass film, z, on the critical disturbance velocity in aluminum. (From Ref. 117, reprinted with permission from Elsevier Sequoia S.A.)


Figure 3.60 The effect of wear on the critical disturbance velocity of a scraper. Larger values of B result in greater amounts of heat going to the counterface. (From Ref. 117.)

Figure 3.61 The effect of wear rate on the critical disturbance velocity for unlubricated self-mated steel and aluminum. (From Ref. 188, reprinted with permission from Elsevier Sequoia S.A.)


it is illustrated by the effect of thin insulating layer on n. It was also found in these analyses that the motion of the hot spots is affected by the partition of heat. The effect of wear against a conductive counterface on n was modeled for a flat blade sliding against a rotating drum (119–122). The normalized results of that model are shown in Fig. 3.60. The results for a steel and aluminum blade are shown in Fig. 3.61. This graph shows that high wear rates can significantly increase n. An important aspect of TEI thermal wear processes is that they can occur under conditions where there is only a moderate rise in surface temperature, for example, TEI behavior has been observed in situations where the temperature rise of metal surfaces is 100 C or less (123). The other types of thermal mechanism typically require significantly higher temperatures. For these, the severity of thermal wear can be reduced by cooling and using materials whose properties are less sensitive to increases in temperature. 3.7. TRIBOFILM WEAR PROCESSES Many investigators have identified tribofilms and their importance to wear and friction behavior (22,107,124–133). Tribofilms are layers of compacted wear debris that form on surfaces during sliding. Such films are also called transfer films, third-body films or simply third-bodies. The term transfer film is commonly used when the composition of the material in the layer is the same as the counterface. The term third-body is a generic term for any interface layer or zone which has different material properties than the surfaces and across which velocity differences are accommodated (134). When used to refer to a tribofilm, it generally implies a mixture of wear debris in the layer. Tribofilms act as a lubricant layer between the surfaces, providing separation and accommodating relative motion between the two surfaces. Relative motion with these layers is accomplished by shear within the layer or slip between the layer and the surface. Examples of tribofilms on wear surfaces are shown in Figs. 3.62 and 3.63. Tribofilm wear processes are wear processes in which mass loss from the surfaces or tribosystem occurs through loss of material from tribofilms. As material is lost from these films fresh wear debris from the surface enters the layer to maintain the film. This process is illustrated in Fig. 3.64. Before being lost from the film, debris material is circulated within the layer and between the surfaces. When a stable film is formed, equilibrium requires that the amount of material entering into the layer is the same as lost from the layer. Therefore, once a stable film is formed, wear behavior can be described with the same models and relationships used for debris-producing mechanisms, such as adhesion or repeated-cycle deformation mechanisms, by considering the film as a lubricant. Conceptually, if WRD is the wear rate of a debris-producing mechanism without a tribofilm present, the wear rate, WR, with the tribofilm present is WR ¼KWRD

ð3:93Þ

where K is a proportionality constant, which can generally be incorporated into the empirical wear coefficients of the model. Tribofilms have a significant effect on wear behavior (22,124,135). Generally when stable films are formed, a significant reduction in wear rate is seen. Such an effect can be seen in the data shown in Fig. 3.65. While such films are frequently cited as being key aspects in the wear of polymer–metal systems (124,125,129,130,135), such films can also occur in other sliding systems, for example metal–metal and metal–ceramic. (87,126,130–133,136). Examples of these are shown in Fig. 3.63. Generally, it is the softer


Figure 3.62 Examples of transfer and third body films formed during sliding between plastic and metal surfaces. ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B’’ show disrupted polymer transfer films formed on a metal counterface. ‘‘C’’ shows a continuous polymer transfer film formed on a metal counterface sliding against a fabric reinforced plastic. ‘‘D’’ shows the initial stages and ‘‘E’’ the final stages of the third-body film formed on the surface of the plastic in that case. (‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B’’ from Ref. 128, reprinted with permission from Butterworth Heinemann Ltd.; ‘‘C’’ and ‘‘D’’ from Ref. 140, reprinted with permission from ASME.)

material that will form the film. It should be recognized that while the material in these layers originates from the sliding members, the properties may be different since they can experience high shear and deformation, as well as elevated temperature in the formation process.


Figure 3.63 Examples of nonpolymer film formation. ‘‘A’’ shows an autoradiographic micrograph of the wear track on a Ni surface, sliding against a ferrite counterface. The dark region indicates the existence of a ferrite layer on the surface of the Ni. ‘‘B’’ shows the graphite film that is formed during rolling contact between graphitic A1 counterfaces. ‘‘C’’ shows the transfer film formed on a steel surface in sliding contact with a TiN counterface. The Auger spectra shown in ‘‘D’’ confirm the presence of the film. (‘‘A’’ from Ref. 133, reprinted with permission from Elsevier Sequoia S.A.; ‘‘B’’ from Ref. 131, reprinted with permission from ASME; ‘‘C’’ and ‘‘D’’ from Ref. 190, reprinted with permission from ASME.)

Initially, the films tend to form in patches but with continued sliding, the coverage becomes more uniform. During this phase, the thickness of the deposition might change as well. At some point, a stable film with a characteristic thickness is established. Studies have indicated that the more complete the coverage, the better the wear performance.


Figure 3.64 Schematic illustrating the flow of material associated with tribofilm wear processes.

Stable and beneficial tribofilms generally do not form under lubricated conditions. This is because lubricants tend to inhibit the adhesion of the wear debris to the surfaces and thus inhibit film formation (125,135). Because of this behavior, the wear rate of sliding system, which benefits from tribofilm formation, can increase with the introduction of a poor lubricant. An example of this behavior is shown in Fig. 3.66. Because of the effect that material properties have on attachment, the formation and properties of tribofilms are characteristics of material pairs, not simply the wearing material. For example, in tribosystems, where tribofilms are involved, differences in wear have been observed with different counterface material (22,125,137–139). In addition to this, several other factors have also been identified as being significant in the formation

Figure 3.65 Reduction in plastic wear rate as a result of transfer film formation for unlubricated sliding against stainless steel. For ‘‘A’’, the stainless steel counterface is rough, 0.14 mm Ra, inhibiting transfer film formation. For ‘‘B’’, the counterface is smoother, less than 0.05 mm Ra, allowing transfer film formation. (From Ref. 125.)


Figure 3.66 Changes in polymer wear for various stainless steel=polymer couples when water is used as a lubricant. (From Ref. 135.)

and development of such films. Roughness (22,125,127–130), load (124,140), speed (124,127,130,136,141), and type of motion (126) have all been found to influence these types of films. Several of these studies were done in the context of polymer–metal sliding systems, but there is no reason to indicate that these influences are limited to those systems. These studies suggest that there are optimum conditions associated with several of these parameters (128,129). An example of this for roughness is shown in Fig. 3.67. The proposed explanation for such behavior is that a certain degree of roughness promotes adhesion of the wear debris to the surface, in much the same way that it helps with the adhesion of coatings and platings. On the other hand, too coarse a roughness would result in larger wear debris, which would not adhere as well. In addition, a thicker film would be required to protect against the higher asperities and such films would tend to be unstable. These counter trends result in an optimum condition. Thus, some studies have concluded that a harder counterface is preferred to a softer one in that the optimum roughness condition will remain stable and not be altered by wear (125). It should be noted that the complete dependency of roughness is probably not explained by these rudimentary concepts. For example, it has been indicated that the flatness of the asperity tips may also be a factor (127). The influence of speed on polymer film formation is shown in Fig. 3.68. As for roughness, there appears to be an optimum for speed as well. The reason proposed for this behavior is that a certain degree of softening of the polymer surface has to occur for significant transfer to occur. At low speed, the temperature is too low for softening; at higher speeds, however, the temperature increases and the flow characteristics of the softened sur-


Figure 3.67 The effect of counterface surface roughness on transfer film formation in the case of filled PTFE sliding against steel. (From Ref. 128.)

face layer allow film formation to occur. At still higher speeds, the temperature is so high that the flow characteristics would degrade and film formation would not occur. As a consequence, it as been proposed that an important material property for transfer film formation is the rheological properties of the polymer (130). Similar concepts can be proposed for the effect of load. Increased load will promote adhesion and will also increase temperature. Excessive load will tend to result in larger wear debris, higher temperature, and more effectively remove material from the contact surfaces. Studies have shown that film

Figure 3.68 The effect of sliding speed on transfer film formation in the case of a polymer=polymer couple. (From Ref. 124).


formation can either decrease (124) or increase (140) with increasing load. Again, this would suggest that an optimum condition should exist for film formation. Geometrical and shape elements, which can affect the trapping and displacement of debris in the contact region, can also have an effect of tribofilm formation (128). 3.8. ABRASIVE WEAR Abrasive wear is wear caused by hard particles and protuberances. Abrasion and erosion are terms commonly used for abrasive wear situations. These two types of situations are illustrated in Fig. 3.69. When two surfaces are involved, the wear situation is generally referred to as abrasion. A distinction is usually made between two types of abrasion, two-body and three-body abrasion, because of significant differences in the wear behavior associated with these two situations. Two-body abrasion is when the wear is caused by protuberances on or hard particles fixed to a surface. Three-body abrasion is when the particles are not attached but between the surfaces (142). Filing, sanding, and grinding would be examples of two-body abrasion, as well as wear caused by magnetic media and paper; a rough, file-like metal surface sliding on a polymer surface would be another. Examples of three-body abrasion would be wear caused by sand or grit in a bearing and hard wear debris and abrasive slurries trapped between moving surfaces. The term erosion is generally applied to abrasive wear situations when only one surface is involved. Slurry erosion and solid particle erosion are common generic terms for such situations. Solid par-

Figure 3.69 Abrasive wear situations.


ticle erosion is when a stream of particles or fluid containing particles impacts a surface, causing wear. The wear caused by sand and grit in air streams are examples. An example of slurry erosion would be the wear of pipes through which slurries are pumped. Examples of abrasive wear scars are shown in Figs. 3.70 and 3.71. In the following discussion of abrasive wear two-body abrasion by protuberances is considered to be equivalent to two-body abrasion by hard particles or abrasive grains attached to a surface.

Figure 3.70 Examples of abrasive wear. ‘‘A’’, two-body abrasion. ‘‘B’’, particle impingement. ‘‘C’’ and ‘‘D’’, three-body abrasion. (‘‘A’’, and ‘‘B’’ from Ref. 152 and ‘‘C’’ and ‘‘D’’ from Ref. 64; reprinted with permission from ASME.)



When the abrasives are harder than the surface they are wearing, the dominant type of wear mechanism in abrasive wear is single-cycle deformation, though repeated-cycle deformation mechanisms, as well as chemical and thermal mechanisms may also be involved (143). When the abrasives are softer than the surface they are wearing, the dominant type of mechanism becomes repeated-cycle deformation (61,144). In abrasive wear situations, the significance of single-cycle deformation mechanisms does not decrease with sliding or duration, as they typically do in nonabrasive wear situations. Generally, these mechanisms remain the same unless there is a change with the characteristics of the particles involved, such as changes in size, sharpness, or amount. Such changes can take place as a result of particle wear and fracture and the accumulation of particles within the contact area with time. The atmosphere and fluid media in which abrasive wear takes place is often a factor in the abrasive wear. Wear rates tend to be higher when there is a chemical interaction with the wearing surface. This is generally attributed to chemical wear mechanisms, the modification of surface mechanical properties as a result of chemical interaction, that is, the Rebinder Effect (145), and synergistic effects between wear and corrosion (146). Synergism between wear and corrosion results from the fact that wear produces fresh surfaces, which are more readily oxidized. In turn, this increased oxidation results in higher wear rates.


Figure 3.71 Expample of wear scars resulting from three-body abrasion. ‘‘A’’,‘‘B’’, and ‘‘C’’ illustrate various degrees of severe abrasive wear, while ‘‘D’’ is an example of mild abrasive wear. (‘‘A’’ from Ref. 148, ‘‘B’’ from Ref. 191, ‘‘C’’ from Ref. 192, and ‘‘D’’ from Ref. 34. ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B’’ reprinted with permission from ASME. ‘‘C’’ reprinted with permission from IBM. ‘‘D’’ reprinted with permission from Elsevier Sequoia S.A.)

It is generally found that one or more of the following equations can describe abrasion: (34,61,144,147–151) V ¼ KPS

ð3:94Þ

V¼

KPS p

ð3:95Þ

V¼

KPS pn

ð3:96Þ

In these equations, V is wear volume, P is load, S is sliding distance, and p is hardness. K is a wear coefficient, which is determined empirically. Equation (3.94) is the most broadly


Figure 3.72 The effect of hardness on the abrasive wear rate of pure metals. Data are for two-body abrasion, when the abrasive is harder than the abraded surface. (From Ref. 193.)

applicable one. It is applies to most materials systems, independent of the relative hardness of the surface to the abrasives, and to two-body and three-body abrasion. In this equation, the wear coefficient is a function of the wearing material, the abrasives, the media or environment in which the abrasion takes place, and the freedom of the particles to move. Equation (3.95), which is the same as the equation used for single-cycle wear, Eq. (3.20), is generally applicable to all material systems and types of abrasion when the abrasive is harder than the wearing surface. As discussed in Sec. 3.3, K in this case tends to be dependent only on material type, not individual materials. This is illustrated by the data in Figs. 3.20 and 3.72. Otherwise the dependencies are the same as with Eq. (3.93). The situation is the same with Eq. (3.96). However, this equation applies to situations where the hardness of the surface and abrasives is similar or when the surface is harder. When similar, limited data indicate that n is around 10. When the surface is harder, n is around 5 (151). The change in the hardness dependency between these two equations is the result of the change in the type of dominant wear mechanism, that is, from single-cycle deformation to repeated-cycle deformation. Nominal values for K in Eq. (3.95) are given in Table 3.8 for a variety of conditions. It can be seen that K ranges over several orders of magnitude and that some trends exist. One trend that is evident is that two-body abrasive wear situations generally have higher values of K than three-body conditions. The explanation for this is that in the three-body situation, the abrasive grain is free to move and therefore may not always produce wear. For example, it may roll and tumble along the surface instead of sliding and cutting out a groove. Or it may align itself so that the bluntest profile presents itself to the surface. This concept is illustrated in Fig. 3.73. A second trend that is illustrated by the data given in Table 3.8 is that the larger the abrasive grain or particle, the larger the value of K. This same trend is also found in threebody abrasion (152). In addition to the intuitive one that larger grains can form larger


Table 3.8 K Values for Abrasive Wear K Condition

Dry

Lubricated

Two-body File New abrasive paper Used abrasive paper Coarse polishing < 100 mm particles > 100 mm particles Nominal range, dry and lubricated: < 1 to > 104

5 102 102 103 104 102 101

101 2 102 2 103 2 104

Three-body Coarse particles Fine particles Nominal range, dry and lubricated: < 102 to 106

103 104

5 103 5 104

groves, several reasons for this trend have been proposed. One of these is that surface roughness and debris clogging effects become less significant with larger grains. This is illustrated in Fig. 3.74. Another mechanism that has been proposed is that larger grains are more likely to fracture with multiple engagements, forming new particles with sharp edges, while smaller particles are likely to have their edges rounded by a wear process. Still another possibility is that with naturally occurring abrasive particles it is frequently difficult to separate size and sharpness. Therefore it has been suggested that in certain cases the larger particles may just be sharper. As with most aspects of wear all of these effects probably contribute to the overall trend with some being more significant than others in particular situations. While the precise reasons for the dependency on size is not known, there appears to be a very definite relationship that applies to many situations (34,153). This trend is shown

Figure 3.73 The effects of rolling and sliding actions in three-body abrasion.


Figure 3.74 The effect of the accumulation of wear debris in two-body abrasive wear.

in Fig. 3.75. It can be seen that in all cases there appears to be an almost linear relationship between size and wear, up to approximately 100 mm, but above that size wear tends to be independent of particle size. As with the general trend with size seen in Table 3.8, there is no established explanation for the transition above 100 mm. However, it has been proposed that in addition to the aspects mentioned earlier, particle loading could also play a role. As size increases, the number of particles involved at any instant may change, probably decreasing, which would tend to decrease the abrasive wear rate. As the number decreases, the load per particle would increase, which would tend to increase wear associated with each particle. These two effects would tend to offset each other. Under certain conditions, they could cancel and stable wear behavior as a function of size could result.

Figure 3.75 The influence of abrasive particle size on wear. The data are for SiC particles. (From Ref. 153.)


The third trend, which can be seen in the data given in Table 3.8, is the influence of lubrication. Lubrication tends to increase abrasive wear. This is consistent with the effect of lubrication on single-cycle deformation wear discussed in Sec. 3.3, where two mechanisms are proposed for this. One is a change from plowing to cutting. Basically, cutting results in more material removal than plowing or plastic deformation. By reducing, the coefficient of friction lubrication can increase the likelihood or amount of cutting taking place by lowering the critical attack angle for cutting. The variation in critical attack angle with the coefficient of friction is shown in Fig. 3.76. The second way lubrication can affect abrasive wear is the prevention of clogging by wear debris (154). While both are likely to be involved in the case of abrasion, the primary mechanism for this trend is generally accepted to be the accumulation of wear debris, which shares the load and protects the surface from the abrasive grains. The presence of a liquid lubricant at the interface helps to flush the wear debris from the interface and to reduce the shielding effect. The simplest illustration of this behavior is the build-up of debris that occurs on polishing and sanding papers and on files without lubrication. When these surfaces become sufficiently contaminated, the effective abrasive action decreases. Experiments with dry, silicon carbide abrasive paper show that the wear rate decreases to 0 with time and that the effect occurred sooner with finer grain papers (155). While two effects probably contribute to the total behavior, that is, clogging of

Figure 3.76 Critical angle of attack for cutting as a function of the coefficient of friction (based on Eq. (3.27)).


Figure 3.77 Effect of debris accumulation on abrasive wear. The equivalent value of the exponent in Eq. (3.97) is shown on the graphs. (From Ref. 156, reprinted with permission from Elsevier Science Publishers.)

the surface of the paper and wear of the grains, the latter point suggests clogging as being a significant factor. Finer grain paper would be more easily clogged than larger grain paper. A common practice in filing and polishing (sanding) is to use a lubricant to reduce clogging of the paper or file. The significance of contamination by wear debris on the abrasive wear process is also illustrated in a study of abrasive wear of polymers (156). The following type of relationship was found for wear: V ¼ Kxn

ð3:97Þ

with n < 1. With n < 1 a decreasing wear rate occurs. Graphically this behavior is illustrated in Fig. 3.77 for several plastics and different values of n. This behavior was correlated to the build-up of a polymer layer on the abrasive surface which prevented some of the abrasive grains from contacting the wear surface. As the layer became thicker, more and more grains would be buried. This effect is illustrated in Fig. 3.78. In addition to size, the wear coefficients in the equations for abrasive wear are also affected by other attributes of the particles. One is their sharpness or angularity. Wear coefficients generally are higher for angular particles than rounded particles. The number of particles involved is also a factor. In general, there tends to be a saturation level in terms of the number of particles, above which wear rate does not increase. This is generally attributed to the fact that below a certain number of particles part of the load is supported by asperity contact. This is shown in Fig. 3.79. Difference in particle friability and wear resistance can also affect values of these coefficients (34,157). These same general trends also apply to the wear coefficient when the surface is harder than the abrasives, that is K in Eq. (3.95). However, the exact relationships can be different. For example, with a harder surface, particle size is not a factor above


Figure 3.78 The effect of polymer film formation on abrasive wear rate.

10 mm, while for softer surfaces, this only occurs above 100 mm (34,158). Difference in particle friability and wear resistance would also tend to be more important when the surfaces are harder than when they are softer. As shown previously in Fig. 3.20, a one-to-two order of magnitude reduction in wear rate is typically found when the hardness of the abraded surface exceeds the hardness of the abrasive. This is a very significant fact for practical handling of abrasive wear situations. Basically, to achieve low wear rates in abrasive wear situations, the goal is to select a material which is harder than the abrasives encountered. In erosive situations, particles are not pressed against the surface as in abrasion; they impact the wearing surface. The load between the particle and the surface is an impulse load, which can be described in terms of the momentum and kinetic energy of the particle.

Figure 3.79 The effect of the amount of abrasives, a, on the abrasive wear coefficient, showing a saturation effect. (From Ref. 34.)


Because of this difference, it is necessary to modify the equation for single-cycle wear for applicability to erosion situations. A simple way of extending this equation to particle erosion is as follows (70). The equation for single-cycle wear, Eq. (3.20), relates wear to the normal load. The first step in the derivation is to convert from normal load to frictional load, F. This is done by means of Amontons’ Law, Eq. (1.1), namely, F ¼ mP

ð3:98Þ

Equation (3.20) then becomes V¼

KðFxÞ mp

ð3:99Þ

where the product Fx represents the energy dissipated by sliding during the impact. The total kinetic energy of a particle stream of total mass, M, and particle velocity, n, is given by 1 E ¼ Mv2 2

ð3:100Þ

As a result of the impact with the surface, a fraction, b, of the energy is dissipated in the form of wear. Equating this loss to Fx, the following expression is obtained: V¼

KbMv2 2mp

ð3:101Þ

In erosion, it has been established that the angle at which the stream impinges the surface influences the rate at which material is removed from the surface and that this dependency is also influenced by the nature of the wearing material (70,159). This is shown in Fig. 3.80. Such a dependency is to be anticipated. This can be seen by considering the

Figure 3.80 The effect of attack angle on erosion rates of ductile and brittle materials. (From Ref. 194.)


impact of a single particle with a surface. The angle determines the relative magnitude of the two velocity components of the impact, namely the component normal to the surface and the one parallel to the surface. The normal component will determine how long the impact will last, that is, the contact time, tc, and the load. The product of tc and the tangential velocity component determine the amount of sliding that takes place. The tangential velocity component also provides a shear loading to the surface, which is in addition to the normal load related to the normal component of the velocity. Therefore, as the angle changes, the amount of sliding that takes place also changes, as does the nature and magnitude of the stress system. Both of these aspects influence the way a material wears. These changes would also imply that different types of materials would exhibit different angular dependencies as well. As can be seen in Fig. 3.80, the effect of angle on erosion rate is significantly different for ductile and brittle materials. With brittle material, the maximum erosion rate occurs at normal impact, while for ductile materials it occurs at some intermediate and generally much smaller angle. These differences can be understood in terms of the predominant modes of damage associated with these types of materials. As discussed in Sec. 3.3, brittle fracture tends to increase the amount of wear over that caused by displacement, that is by cutting and plowing. As indicated in Fig. 3.20, this could be by as much as 10 . As a general rule, brittle materials are more likely to fracture under normal impact conditions, that is, impacting velocity perpendicular to the surface, than ductile materials. Consequently, as the erosive condition moves from a more grazing situation to a more normal impact, brittle materials would experience a greater tendency to experience brittle fracture, which would tend to increasingly mask the ductile or cutting contributions. For brittle materials, the erosion rate would then be expected to monotonically increase with the angle. For ductile materials, cutting and plowing are the predominant modes and fracture is negligible. The model for single-cycle deformation indicates that the wear due to cutting and plowing is proportional to the product of load and distance (see Eq. (3.20)). Since load increases with angle and sliding decreases with angle, an intermediate angle should exist where the product of the two is maximum. This angular dependency is contained in b in Eq. (3.101). Assuming that b can be separated into an angular factor, F, and a factor independent of angle, b0 , and combining several of the material-sensitive parameters and numerical factors into one, Ke, the following expression can be obtained: V¼

Ke FMv2 p

ð3:102Þ

Examining this equation for erosive-wear volume, it can be seen that it does not provide an explicit dependency on duration or exposure. However, such a dependency is implicitly contained in M, the total mass of particles. If Q is particle mass per unit time, then M is Qt, where t is the time of exposure to the particle stream. Including this into Eq. (3.102), the following form is obtained for particle erosion: V¼

Ke Fv2 Qt p

ð3:103Þ

Another variation of Eq. (3.102) is frequently encountered in the literature. Comparison of erosive wear situations and resistance to erosion is often done in terms of the relative amount of material removed from the surface to the amount of abrasive particle


causing the wear (160). With d as the density of the particles, the following equation can be obtained: V Ke dFv2 ¼ Va p

ð3:104Þ

where Va is the volume of abrasive used to produce the wear. A compilation of values for the erosive wear coefficient, Ke, is given in Table 3.9. Comparing these values to the values for wear coefficients for abrasion, Table 3.8, it can been seen that they are very similar. This is consistent with the underlying hypothesis that the same wear mechanisms occur in both situations. Equations for solid particle erosion, which are equivalent to Eqs. (3.94) and (3.96) for abrasion, can be developed in a similar manner. These are: V ¼ Ke Fv2 Qt

ð3:105Þ

Ke Fv2 Qt pn

ð3:106Þ

V¼

Equation (3.106) applies when the surface is harder than the particles. In general, the erosive wear coefficients in these equations for particle erosion have similar sensitivities to their counterparts for abrasion, that is, they can be affected by characteristics of the abrasives, type of material or simply material, atmosphere, and fluid media (161). In controlling abrasive wear, the most significant feature is that once the wearing surface becomes harder than the abrasive, wear rates are dramatically reduced. The effect here is equivalent to the use of lubricants to control adhesive wear. Both give orders-ofmagnitude improvement. Further discussion and examples of abrasion and particle erosion can be found in Chapter 9, and in Chapters 5 and 7 of Engineering Design for Wear: Second Edition, Revised and Expanded.

3.9. WEAR MAPS Wear maps are graphical techniques used to characterize various aspect of wear behavior in terms of independent operational parameters of the tribosystem, such as speed and load. Various forms of wear maps are typically used to identify ranges of these parameters with wear mechanisms, wear rates, and acceptable operating conditions. Generally, they are twodimensional graphs where the axes are the independent operational parameters. Curves are plotted on these graphs to separate regions of different wear behavior and to represent conditions of constant wear rate. In addition to the generic name of wear map such plots are also referred to as wear mechanism maps, wastage maps, material performance maps, wear transition maps, wear rate maps, and contour wear maps, depending on their nature and use. Examples of different types of wear maps are shown in Figs. 3.81–3.84 and 3.86–3.90. Figures 3.81–3.84 are examples of ones used for sliding wear; Figs. 3.86 and 3.87, for tool wear; and Figs. 3.88, 3.89, and 3.90, for solid particle erosion. While maps of these types can be developed on a purely theoretical or experimental basis, most are primarily empirical-based. However, theoretical considerations are often involved to facilitate the construction and to minimize the amount of data required (106,109,162– 170).


Table 3.9

Ke Values for Erosion

Target material Soft steel Steel Hard steel Aluminum Copper

Ke 8 1 1 5 3

103 102 102 103 103

– – – – –

4 102 8 102 1 101 1.5 102 1.3 102

Figure 3.81 Wear map developed for unlubricated sliding between self-meted steel. (From Ref. 109, reprinted with permission from Elsevier Science Publishers.)


Figure 3.82 Wear mechanisms maps used to characterize the unlubricated sliding wear behavior of self-mated 440C stainless steel. (From Ref. 163, reprinted with permission from Elsevier Sequoia S.A.)


Figure 3.83 Wear map characterzing the wear behavior of Cr ion-implanted iron sliding against a hard steel counterface and lubricated with liquid paraffin. (From Ref. 168, reprinted with permission from Elsevier Sequoia S.A.)

Figure 3.84 Example of wear maps used to characterize the unlubricated wear behaviour of silicon nitride ceramics sliding against steel. These maps are referred to as wear transition maps and show the transition in wear behavior of the ceramic as function of ambient temperature and speed. (From Ref. 136, reprinted with permission from Elsevier Sequoia S.A.)


Figure 3.85 Examples of wear scars on silicon nitride ceramics in the different regions identified in wear transition maps, such as illustrated in Fig. 3.84. ‘‘A’’ is for 22 C and 0.5 m=s; ‘‘B’’ is for 200 C and 0.5 m=s; ‘‘C’’ is for 22 C and 3.5 m=s. (From Ref. 136, reprinted with permission from Elsevier Sequoia S.A.)

Figure 3.86 Wear map for flank wear of Ti-N coated steel tool. Map is used to identify acceptable regions of operation. (From Ref. 167, reprinted with permission from Elsevier Sequoia S.A.)


Figure 3.87 Wear map for flank wear of Ti-N coated steel tools, identifying regions of different wear behavior. These regions are superimposed on those used to identify acceptable performance (see Fig. 3.86). (From Ref. 167, reprinted with permission from Elsevier Sequoia S.A.)

Figure 3.81 shows the first wear map that was developed to illustrate the wear map concept (109). This map is one proposed for unlubricated or dry sliding between steels, using normalized pressure and normalized velocity as the axes. In it the boundaries between regions of different wear mechanisms are identified, as well as the locus of pressures and velocity conditions for a constant normalized wear rate within those regions.

Figure 3.88 Example of wear maps used to characterize erosion. This type of map is referred to as velocity-particle size wastage maps. Axes are particle velocity and particle size. (From Ref. 164, reprinted with permission from Elsevier Sequoia S.A.)


Figure 3.89 An example of the types of wear maps used to characterize erosion. This type is referred to as materials performance maps. In these, the different regions are used to identity wastage conditions for individual materials. In this particular map, the various shaded regions are regions of low wastage for the individual materials. The clear region is a region of medium wastage for all the materials. (From Ref. 164, reprinted with permission from Elsevier Sequoia S.A.)

Another example of a wear map is the contour wear maps developed for 440C stainless steel for use in high-pressure oxygen turbopumps, shown in Fig. 3.82 (163). In these maps contour lines of constant wear rate are plotted. For these applications, it was desirable to characterize wear behavior in terms of three operating parameters, load, speed, and ambient temperature. To accomplish this, wear maps were developed for different combinations of these parameters, as illustrated in the figure. In this case, the wear map can be thought of as a three-dimensional wear space with axes of load, speed, and temperature, where surfaces of constant wear rate can be identified. The two-dimensional graphs can then be thought of as planes in that space and the contour lines are the intersection of those planes with these surfaces. A less complex wear map than these two examples is shown in Fig. 3.83. In this case load and speed are the operating variables of interest (168). This wear map is an example of a wear mechanism map. In this map, three regions of different wear mechanisms, each with a characteristic order-of-magnitude wear rate, are identified. These regions were identified by physical examination of the worn surfaces and wear rate determination. Wear transition maps are illustrated in Fig. 3.84. In this case, ambient temperature and speed are the axes (165). In this map, three different regions of wear behavior are identified and correlated with different ranges of a wear coefficient for a ceramic slider. In this tribosystem, wear behavior can be correlated to flash temperature and isothermal contours for flash temperature are also plotted on the map. For this tribosystem, the three different


Figure 3.90 An example of four-variable wear map used to describe erosion behavior. This map is used to characterize wear behavior in terms of wear mechanisms and use erodent size, erodent velocity, temperature, and material composition as parameters controlling the wear. (From Ref. 164, reprinted with permission from Elsevier Sequoia S.A.)

wear regions are a result of differences in the formation of tribofilms on the surface of the ceramic, as shown in Fig. 3.85. In region I, there is no evidence of transfer and a tribofilm is not formed. In regions II and III, higher flash temperature promotes adhesion of tool steel wear particles to the ceramic surface. In region II, there is partial film formation. In region III, the film is more uniform and extensive. Wear maps are also used to characterize tool wear and to determine optimum operating conditions for least tool wear (162,166,167,169). Example of a wear rate map used for this purpose is shown in Fig. 3.86 (167). In this case, the axes are feed rate and cutting speed. The boundaries of the regions are based on wear rate. Mechanism information can also be placed on the map to provide a wear mechanism map. This is shown in Fig. 3.87, where three regions of different dominant mechanism are identified. It is can be seen in this map that the least wear region includes two different mechanism regions. With tools, such maps are used to characterize both flank wear, as illustrated in the figures, and crater wear (169). The use of wear maps in solid particle erosion is illustrated in Figs. 3.88, 3.89, and 3.90. Three different types of wear maps are used (164). One is referred to as wastage maps and the axes are generally particle size and velocity. Figure 3.88 is an example of this. In this case, the maps identify regions of high medium, and low wastage rates, which were based on the depth of wear, x, in a standard test. High wastage rate was equivalent to x 8 mm; medium, 4 mm x < 8 mm; low, x 4 mm. These levels were based on the approximate levels of wastage that can typically be tolerated in a fluid bed conveyer. Material performance maps are developed from this by overlaying the wastage maps obtained for different materials. In this case, it was for different metal matrix compo-


sites (MMC). An example of such a wear map is shown in Fig. 3.89. In this type of application, ambient temperature is also a factor and these types of curves were developed for a series of temperatures, which spanned the application range. A third form of a wear map that is used to characterize solid particle erosion is the ternary map shown in Fig. 3.90. This is a wear mechanism map in which four different modes of wear are identified. The fractured dominated and plastic mechanisms are mechanisms associated with the wear of the reinforcing particle, while the remaining two are wear modes associated with the composite (171). This map shows the combined effect of temperature, velocity, composition, and particle size on type of mechanism involved (164,172). A common example of a wear map is the PV diagrams (pressure–velocity graphs) often used to describe the wear behavior of engineering plastics. In this case, the PV Limit curve separates pressure and velocity combinations into two regions of wear behavior, one that is generally considered to be acceptable for applications and the other that is not (173).

REFERENCES 1. 2. 3. 4.

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

M Peterson. Mechanisms of wear. In: F Ling, E Klaus, R Fein, eds. Boundary Lubrication. ASME, 1969, pp 19–38. V Tipnis. Cutting tool wear. In: M Peterson, W Winer, eds. Wear Control Handbook. ASME, 1980, p 901. K Budinski. Tool material. In: M Peterson, W Winer, eds. Wear Control Handbook. ASME, 1980, p 950. L Kendall. Friction and wear of cutting tools and cutting tool materials. In: P Bau, ed. Friction, Lubrication, and Wear Technology, ASM Handbook. Vol. 18. Materials Park, OH: ASM International, 1992, p 613. J Vleugels, O Van Der Biest. Chemical wear mechanisms of innovative ceramic cutting tools in the machining of steel. Wear 225–229:285–294, 1999. V Venkatesh. Effect of magnetic field on diffusive wear of cutting tools. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials ASME 242–247, 1977. E Usui, T Shirakashi. Analytical prediction of cutting tool wear. Wear 100:129–152, 1984. W Schintlmeister, W Walgram, J Kanz, K Gigl. Cutting tool materials coated by chemical vapour deposition. Wear 100:153–170, 1984. O Vingsbo. Wear and wear mechanisms. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials ASME 620–635, 1979. R Bayer. Wear in electroerosion printing. Wear 92:197–212, 1983. C Livermore. Technology. The Industrial Physicist, Dec 2001=Jan 2002. American Institute of Physics, pp 20–25. J Burwell, C Strang. Metallic wear. C. Proc Roy Soc A 212:470, 1953. K Ludema. Selecting materials for wear resistance. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials ASME 1–6, 1981. D Tabor. Wear - A critical synoptic view. Proc. Intl. Conf. Wear Materials ASME 1–11, 1977. M Peterson. Mechanisms of wear. In: F Ling, E Klaus, R Fein, eds. Boundary Lubrication. ASME, 1969, p 19–38. E Rabinowicz. Friction and Wear of Materials. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1965. D Rigney, W Glaeser, eds. Source Book on Wear Control Technology. ASME, 1978. D Scott, ed. Wear. Treatise on Material Science and Technology. Vol. 13. New York: Academic Press, 1979. R Bayer. Wear Analysis for Engineers. HNB Publishing, 2002.


20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.

33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49.

R Bayer, R Schumacher. On the significance of surface fatigue in sliding wear. Wear 12:173– 183, 1968. V Jain, S Babadur. Tribological behavior of unfilled and filled poly(amide-imide) copolymer. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials ASME 385–389, 1987. A Hollander, J Lancaster. An application of topographical analysis to the wear of polymers. Wear 25(2):155–170, 1973. N Saka. Effect of microstructure on friction and wear of metals. In: N Suh, N Saka, eds. Fundamentals of Tribology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1980, pp 135–172. N Suh. The delamination theory of wear. Wear 25:111–124, 1973. V Jain, S Bahadur. Experimental verification of fatigue wear equation. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials ASME 700–705, 1981. A Bower, K Johnson. The influence of strain hardening on cumulative plastic deformation in rolling and sliding line contact. J Mech Phys Solids 37(4):471–493, 1989. K Johnson. Proceedings of the 20th Leeds–Lyon Symposium on Tribology. Elsevier, 1994, p 21. R Burton, ed. Thermal Deformation in Frictionally Heated Systems. Elsevier, 1980. J Burwell, C Strang. Metallic wear. Proc Roy Soc A 212:470, 1953. T Kjer. A lamination were mechanism beased on plastic waves. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials ASME 191–198, 1987. W Campbell. Boundary lubrication. In: F Ling, E Klaus, R Fein, eds. Boundary Lubrication. ASME 87–118, 1969. R Bayer. Tribological approaches for elastomer applications in computer peripherals. In: Denton R, K Keshavan, eds. Wear and Friction of Elastomers. STP 1145, ASTM International, 1992, pp 114–126. R Bayer. A general model for sliding wear in electrical contacts. Wear 162:913–918, 1993. R Bayer. A model for wear in an abrasive environment as applied to a magnetic sensor. Wear 70:93–117, 1981. B Bricoe. The wear of polymers: An essay on fundamental aspects. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials ASME 7–16, 1981. R Bayer, T Ku. Handbook of Analytical Design for Wear. New York: Plenum Press, 1964. J Greenwood, J Williamson. Contact of nominally flat surfaces. Proc Roy Soc A 295:300–319, 1966. J Greenwood, J Tripp. The elastic contact of rough spheres. J Appl Mech Trans ASME March, 153–159, 1967. F Bowden, D Tabor. The Friction and Lubrication of Solids. New York: Oxford U. Press, Part I, 1964, and Part II, 1964. R Holm. Electric Contact Handbook. New York: Springer, 1958. W Glaeser. Lecture Notes, Wear Fundamentals Course for Engineering, International Wear of Materials Conference, ASME, 1989. E Rabinowicz. Surface interaction. Friction and Wear of Materials. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1965, p 50. D Kuhlmann-Wilsdorf. In: D Rigney, ed. Fundamentals of Friction and Wear of Materials. ASM, 1981. B Bhushan, B Gupta. Friction, wear and lubrication. Handbook of Tribology. McGraw-Hill, 1991, p 2.4. J McFarlane, D Tabor. Proc R Soc Lond A 202:244, 1950. J Ferrante, J Smith, J Rice. Microscopic Aspects of Adhesion and Lubrication. Tribology Series. New York: Eslevier Science Publishing Co., 1982, p 7. J Archard. Contact and rubbing of flat surfaces. J App Phys 24:981–988, 1953. E Rabinowicz. Adhesive wear. Friction and Wear of Materials. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1965, pp 139–140. E Rabinowicz. Wear coefficients–metals. In: M Peterson, W Winer, eds. Wear Control Handbook. ASME, 1980, pp 475–506.


50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55.

56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65.

66. 67. 68. 69. 70.

71. 72. 73. 74. 75.

K Ludema. Introduction to wear. In: P Blau, ed. Friction Lubrication and Wear Technology, ASM Handbook. Vol. 18. Materials Park. OH: ASM International, 1992, p 175. E Rabinowicz. Adhesive wear. Friction and Wear of Materials. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1965, pp 139–164. B Bhushan, B Gupta. Handbook of Tribology. Section 3.3. McGraw-Hill, 1991. E Rabinowicz. Adhesive wear. Friction and Wear of Materials. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1965, pp 151–163. E Rabinowicz. Adhesive wear. Friction and Wear of Materials. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1965, pp 159–162. R Errichello. Friction, lubrication, and wear of gears. In: P Blau, ed. Friction, Lubrication, and Wear Technology, ASM HandBook. Vol. 18. Materials Park, OH: ASM International, 1992, pp 535–545. P Engel. Impact wear. In: P Blau, ed. Friction, Lubrication and Wear Technology, ASM Handbook. Vol. 18. Materials Park, OH: ASM International, 1992, p p 263–270. P Blau. Rolling contact wear. In: P Blau, ed. Friction, Lubrication and Wear Technology, ASM Handbook. Vol. 18. Materials Park, OH: ASM International, 1992, pp 257–262. D Evans, J Lancaster. The wear of polymers. In: D Scott, ed. Treatise of Materials Science and Technology. Vol. 13. Academic Press, 1979, pp 86–140. E Rabinowicz. Abrasive and other types of wear. Friction and Wear of Materials. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1965, p 169. M Moore, F King. Abrasive wear of brittle solids. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials ASME 275– 284, 1979. M Moore, P Swanson. The effect of particle shape on abrasive wear. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials ASME 1–11, 1983. H Hokkirigawa, Z Li. The effect of hardness on the transition of abrasive wear mechanism of steel. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials ASME 585–594, 1987. N Suh, H-C Sin, N Saka. Fundamental aspects of abrasive wear. In: N Suh, N Saka, eds. Fundamentals of Tribology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1980, p 493–518. K Zum Gahr. Formation of wear debris due to abrasion. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials ASME 396–405, 1981. K Zum Gahr, D Mewes. Microstructural influence on abrasive wear resistance of high strength, high toughness medium carbon steels. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials ASME 130– 139, 1983. E Rabinowicz. Abrasive and other types of wear. Friction and Wear of Materials. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1965, p 179. R Bayer, W Clinton, C Nelson, R Schumacher. Engineering model for wear. Wear 5:378–391, 1962. T Tallian. On competing failure modes in rolling contact. ASLE Trans 10(4):418–439, 1967. P Engel. Impact Wear of Materials. Tribology Series. Chapter 3. New York: Elsevier Science Publishing Co., 1978. E Rabinowicz. The wear equation for erosion of metals by abrasive particles. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Erosion by Solid and Liquid Impact, 38–5, Cambridge, UK: Cavendish Laboratory, 1979. K Zum, K Gahr, H Franze. Rolling-sliding wear on precipitation hardened structures of an austenitic steel. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials ASME 23–32, 1987. V Sastry, D Singh, A Sethuramiah. A study of wear mechanisms under partial elastohydrodynamic conditions. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials ASME 245–250, 1987. Roller Bearings, Part I and Part II. Lubrication (Jul–Sept and Oct–Dec), Beacon, NY: Texaco, Inc., 1974. C Lipson. Machine Design, 1=8=70. Cleveland, OH: Penton Publ. Co., pp 130–134. P Engel. Impact Wear of Materials. Tribology Series. New York: Elsevier Science Publishing Co., 1978.


76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87.

88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106.

V Jain, S Babadur. Tribological behavior of unfilled and filled poly(amide-imide) copolymer. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials ASME 389–396, 1987. N Saka. Effect of microstructure on friction and wear of metals. In: N Suh, N Saka, eds. Fundamentals of Tribology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1980, pp 135–172. V Jain, S Bahadur. Experimental verification of fatigue wear equation. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials ASME 700–706, 1981. M Shaw, F Macks. Analysis and Lubrication of Bearings. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1949. R Morrison. Machine Design, 8=1=68. Cleveland, OH: Penton Publ. Co., pp 102–108. E Zaretsky, ed. Life Factors for Rolling Bearings. STLE SP-34. STLE, 1999. G Lundberg, A Palmgren. Dynamic capacity of roller bearings. Acta Polytechnica. Mech. Eng. Series. 1(3), 1947. S Timoshenko, J Goodier. Theory of Elasiticity. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1951. P Engel, T Lyons, J Sirico. Impact wear theory for steels. Wear 23:185–201, 1973. A Rosenfield. Modelling of dry sliding wear. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials ASME 390–393, 1983. A Atkins, K Omar. The load-dependence of fatigue wear in polymers. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials ASME 405–409, 1985. W Glaeser. A case of wear particle formation through shearing-off at contact spots interlocked through micro-roughness in ‘‘adhesive wear’’. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials ASME 155–162, 1987. E Zaretsky, ed. Lubrication. Life Factors for Rolling Bearings. STLE SP-34. Section 5.6.2. STLE, 1999, pp 210–214. M Reznikovskii. In: D James, ed. Abrasion of Rubber. Maclaren, 1967. G Hamilton, L Goodman. The stress field created by a circular sliding contact. J App Mech 33(2):371–376, 1966. J Hailing. A contribution to the theory of mechanical wear. Wear 34(3):239–250, 1975. V Jain, S Bahadur. Development of a wear equation for polymer-metal sliding in terms of fatigue and topography of sliding surface. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials ASME 556–562, 1979. R Bayer. Prediction of wear in a sliding system. Wear 11:319–332, 1968. J Lancaster. Plastics and Polymers 41(156):297, 1973. A Hollander, J Lancaster. An application of topographical analysis to the wear of polymers. Wear 25(2):155–170, 1973. P Clayton, K Sawley, P Bolton, G Pell. Wear behavior of bainitic steels. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials ASME 133–144, 1987. P Hurricks. Wear 19:207, 1972. T Quinn. Oxidational wear. In: P Blau, ed. Friction, Lubrication, and Wear Technology, ASM Handbook. Vol. 18. Materials Park, OH: ASM International, 1992, pp 280–289. H Uhlig. Mechanism of fretting corrosion. J App Mech 21:401, 1954. G Yoshimoto, T Tsukizoe. On the mechanism of wear between metal sufaces. Wear 1:472, 1957–58. T Tsukizoe. The effects of surface topography on wear. In: N Suh, N Saka, eds. Fundamentals of Tribology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1980, pp 53–66. E Rabinowicz. Friction, Friction and Wear of Materials. Section 4.12. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1965, pp 86–89. T Quinn, J Sullivan. A review of oxidational wear. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials ASME 110–115, 1977. T Quinn, J Sullivan, D Rowson. New developments in the oxidational theory of the mild wear of steels. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials ASME 1–11, 1979. D Caplan, M Cohen. The effect of cold work on the oxidation of iron from 100 to 650 C. Corrosion Sci 6:321, 1966. A Skopp, M Woydt, KH Habig. Tribological behavior of silicon nitride materials under unlubricated sliding between 22 C and 1000 C. Wear 181–183:571–580, 1995.


107. M Sawa, D Rigney. Sliding behavior of dual phase steels in vacuum and in air. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials ASME 231–244, 1987. 108. W Winer, H Chang. Film thickness, contact stress and surface temperatures. In: M Peterson, W Winer, eds. Wear Control Handbook. ASME. 1980, pp 81–142. 109. S Lim, M Ashby. Wear-mechanism maps. Acta Metal 35(1):1–24, 1987. 110. E Rabinowicz, Surface interactions. Friction and Wear of Materials, Chapter 3. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1965. 111. J Greenwood. The area of contact between rough surfaces and flats. Trans ASME J Lub Tech 89:81–91, 1967. 112. I Kraghelski, N Demkin. Wear 3:170, 1960. 113. C Allen, T Quinn, J Sullivan. Trans ASME J Tribol 107:172, 1985. 114. T Quinn, W Winer. Wear 102:67, 1985. 115. J Archard. The temperatures of rubbing surfaces. Wear 2:438, 1958–1959. 116. H Metselaar, A Winnubst, D Schipper. Thermally induced wear of ceramics. Wear 225– 229:857–861, 1999. 117. R Burton. Thermal deformation in frictionally heated contact. In: R Burton, ed. Thermal Deformation in Frictionally Heated Systems. Elsevier, 1980, pp 1–20. 118. B Banerjee. The influence of thermoelastic deformations on the operation of face seals. In: R Burton, ed. Thermal Deformation in Frictionally Heated Systems. Elsevier, 1980, p 89–110. 119. T Dow, R Stockwell. Experimental verification of thermoelastic instabilities in sliding contact. Trans ASME Ser F July:359–364, 1977. 120. R Burton, V Nerlikar, S Kilaparti. Thermoelastic instability in a seal-like configuration. Wear 24:169–198, 1973. 121. J Barber. The influence of thermal expansion on the friction and wear process. Wear 10:155, 1967. 122. S Heckmann, R Burton. Trans ASME Ser F 99:247, 1977. 123. R Burton. Thermal deformation in frictionally heated contact. In: R Burton, ed. Thermal Deformation in Frictionally Heated Systems. Elsevier, 1980, p 6. 124. V Jain, S Bahadur. Material transfer in polymer-polymer sliding. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials ASME 487–493, 1977. 125. B Mortimer, J Lancaster. Extending the life of aerospace dry-bearings by the use of hard, smooth counterfaces. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials ASME 175–184, 1987. 126. P Blau. Effects of sliding motion and tarnish films on the break-in behavior of three copper alloys. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials ASME 93–100, 1987. 127. N Eiss, M Bayraktaroglu. The effect of surface roughness on the wear of low-density polyethylene. ASLE Trans 23(3):269–278, 1980. 128. B Briscoe. Wear of polymers: An essay on fundamental aspects. Trib Intl 14(4):231–243, 1981. 129. B Briscoe, M Steward. Paper No. C27178, Proceedings of Trib. 1978 Conference on Material Performance and Conservation. I. Mech, Eng., 1978. 130. S Rhee, K Ludema. Mechanisms of formation of polymetric transfer films. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials ASME 482–487, 1977. 131. P Rohatgi, B Pai. Seizure resistance of cast aluminum alloys containing dispersed graphite particles of different sizes. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials ASME 127–133, 1977. 132. P Heilmann, J Don, T Sun, W Glaeser, D Rigney. Sliding wear and transfer. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials ASME 414–425, 1983. 133. F Talke. An autoradiographic investigation of material transfer and wear during high speed/low load sliding. Wear 22:69–82, 1972. 134. M Godet. Third-bodies in tribology. Wear 136(1):29–46, 1990. 135. R Bayer, J Sirico. Influence of jet printing inks on wear. IBM J R D 22(1):90–93, 1978. 136. J Gomes, A Miranda, J Vieira, R Silva. Sliding speed-termperature wear transition maps for Si3N4=iron alloy couples. Wear 250:293–298, 2001. 137. J Theberge. A guide to the design of plastic gears and bearings. Machine Design, 2=5=70. Cleveland, OH: Penton Publ. Co., 114–120.


138. M Wolverton, J Theberge. How plastic composites wear against metals. Machine Design, 2=6=86, 67–71, 1986. 139. LNP Design Guide for Internally Lubricated Thermoplastics, LNP Corp, 1978. 140. J Lancaster, D Play, M Godet, A Verrall, R Waghorne. Paper No. 79–Lub-7, Joint ASMEASLE Lubrication Conference Dayton, Oh, 10=79. 141. T Tsukizoe, N Obmae. Wear mechanism of unidirectionally oriented fiber-reinforced plastics. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials ASME 518–525, 1977. 142. J Tylczak. Abrasive wear. In: P Bau, ed. Friction, Lubrication and Wear Technology, ASM Handbook. Vol. 18. Materials Park, OH: ASM International, 1992, p 184. 143. J Tylczak. Abrasive wear. In: P Bau, ed. Friction, Lubrication and Wear Technology, ASM Handbook. Vol. 18. Materials Park, OH: ASM International, 1992, pp 184–190. 144. J Larsen-Basse, B Premaratne. Effect of relative hardness on transitions in abrasive wear mechanisms. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials ASME 161–166, 1983. 145. B Bhushan, B Gupta. Physics of tribological materials. Handbook of Tribology. McGraw-Hill, 1991, p 3.18. 146. B Madsen. Corrosive wear. In: P Blau, ed. Friction, Lubrication and Wear Technology, ASM Handbook. Vol. 18. Materials Park, OH: ASM International, 1992, pp 271–279. 147. E Rabinowicz. Abrasive and other types of wear. Friction and Wear of Materials. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1965, pp 168–173. 148. P Swanson, R Klann. Abrasive wear studies using the wet sand and dry sand rubber wheel tests. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials ASME 379–389, 1981. 149. P Anstice, B McEnaney, P Thornton. Wear of paper slitting blades: the effect of slitter machine settings. Trib Intl 14(5):257–262, 1981. 150. P Engel, R Bayer. Abrasive impact wear of type. J Lub Tech 98:330–334, 1976. 151. R Bayer. The influence of hardness on the resistance to wear by paper. Wear 84:345–351, 1983. 152. A Misra, I Finnie. A classification of three-body abrasive wear and design of a new tester. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials. ASME 313–318, 1979. 153. G Nathan, W Jones. Wear 9:300, 1966. 154. E Rabinowicz. Abrasive and other types of wear. Friction and Wear of Materials. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1965, pp 172–173. 155. T Mulhearn, L Samuels. The abrasion of metals: A model of the process. Wear 5:478–498, 1962. 156. J Thorp. Abrasive wear of some commerical polymers. Trib Intl 15(2):59–68, 1982. 157. P Blau, ed. Friction, Lubrication, and Wear Technology, ASM Handbook. Vol. 18. Materials Park, OH: ASM International, 1992; p 188. 158. E Rabinowicz. Abrasive and other types of wear. Friction and Wear of Materials. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1965, pp 177–179. 159. I Finnie. Erosion of surfaces by solid particles. Wear 3:87–103, 1960. 160. Standard Test Method For conducing Erosion Tests by Solid Particle Impingement Using Gas Jets. ASTM G76. 161. T Kosel. Solid particle erosion. In: P Bau, ed. Friction, Lubrication, and Wear Technology, ASM Handbook. Vol. 18. Materials Park, OH: ASM International, 1992, pp 198–213. 162. S Lim, Y Liu, S Lee, K Seah. Mapping the wear of some cutting-tool materials. Wear 162– 164:971–974, 1993. 163. A Slifka, T Morgan, R Compos, D Chaudhuri. Wear mechanism maps of 440C martensitic stainless steel. Wear 162–164:614–618, 1993. 164. M Stack, D Pena. Mapping erosion of Ni-Cr=WC-based composites at elevated temperatures: Some recent advances. Wear 251:1433–1441, 2001. 165. J Gomes, A Miranda, J Vieira, R Silva. Sliding speed-temperature wear transition maps for Si3N4=iron alloy couples. Wear 250:293–298, 2001. 166. C Lim, P Lau, S Lim. The effects of work material on tool wear. Wear 250:344–348, 2001.


167. S Lim, C Lim, K Lee. The effects of machining conditions on the flank wear of tin-coated high speed steel tool inserts. Wear 181–183:901–912, 1995. 168. D Yang, J Zhou, Q Xue. Wear behavior of Cr implanted pure iron under oil lubricated conditions. Wear 203–204:692–696, 1997. 169. C Lim, S Lim, K Lee. Wear of TiC-coated carbide tools in dry turning. Wear 225–229: 354–367, 1999. 170. S Wilson, T Alpas. Thermal effects on mild wear transitions in dry sliding of an aluminum alloy. Wear 225–229:440–449, 1999. 171. M Stack, J Chacon-Nava, M Jordan. Mater Sci Technol 12:171–177, 1996. 172. M Stack, D Pena. Solid particle erosion of Ni-Cr=WC metal matrix composites at elevated temperatures: construction of erosion mechanism and process control maps. Wear 203– 204:489–497, 1997. 173. R Lewis. Paper No. 69AM5C-2. 24th ASLE Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, 1969. 174. A Fischet. Sliding abrasion tests. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials. ASME 729–734, 1989. 175. L Chen, D Rigney. Transfer during unlubricated sliding wear of selected metal systems. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials. ASME 437–446, 1985. 176. A Sedricks, T Mulhearn. Wear 7:451, 1964. 177. F. Aleinikov. The influence of abrasive powder microhardness on the values of the coefficients of volume removal. Soviet Phys Tech Phys 2:505–511, 1957. F Aleinikov. The effect of certain physical and mechanical properties on the grinding of brittle materials. Soviet Phys Tech Phys 2:2529–2538, 1957. 178. R Bayer. Wear of a C ring seal. Wear 74:339–351, 1981–1982. 179. R Bayer, E Hsue, J Turner. A motion-induced sub-surface deformation wear mechanism. Wear 154:193–204, 1992. 180. R Bayer. Impact wear of elastomers. Wear 112:105–120, 1986. 181. G Laird, W Collins, R Blickensderfer. Crack propagation and spalling of white case iron balls subjected to repeated impacts. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials. ASME 797–806, 1987. 182. M Hamdy, R Waterhouse. The fretting-fatigue behavior of a nickel-based alloy (inconel 718) at elevated temperatures. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials. ASME 351–355, 1979. 183. H Voss, K Friedrich, R Pipes. Friction and wear of PEEK–composites at elevated temperatures. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials. ASME 397–406, 1987. 184. M Kar, S Bahadur. Micromechanism of wear at polymer-metal sliding interface. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials. ASME 501–509, 1977. 185. W Jamison. Tools for rock drilling. In: M Peterson, W Winer, eds. Wear Control Handbook. ASME, 1980, pp 859–890. 186. R Bayer, P Engel, E Sacher. Contributory phenomena to the impact wear of polymer. In: R Deanin, A Crugnola, eds. Toughness and Brittleness of Plastics. ACS, 1976, pp 138–145. 187. R Bill, L Ludwig. Wear of seal materials used in aircraft propulsion systems. In: R Burton, ed. Thermal Deformation in Frictionally Heated Systems. Elsevier, 1980, pp 165–189. 188. T Dow. Thermoelastic effects in brakes. In: R Burton, ed. Thermal Deformation in Frictionally Heated Systems. Elsevier, 1980, pp 213–222. 189. J Netzel. Observations of thermoelastic instability in mechanical face seals. In: R Burton, ed. Thermal Deformation in Frictionally Heated Systems. Elsevier, 1980, pp 135–148. 190. T Singer, S Fayculle, P Ehni. Friction and wear behavior of tin in air: the chemistry of transfer films and debris formation. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials. ASME, 1991, pp 229–242. 191. Y-J Liu, N-P Chen, Z-R Zhang, C-Q Yang. Wear behavior of two parts subjected to ‘gouging’ abrasion. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials ASME 410–415, 1985. 192. R Bayer. Mechanism of wear by ribbon and paper. IBM J R D 26, 1978, 668–674. 193. N Kruschov, M Babichev. Investigation into the Wear of Materials. Moscow: USSR Acad. Sci., 1960. 194. L Ives, A Ruff. Election microscopy study of erosion damage in copper. In: W Adler, ed. Erosion: Prevention and Useful Applications. STP 664, ASTM, 1979, pp 5–35.


4

Wear Behavior and Phenomena 4.1. GENERAL BEHAVIOR Some trends in wear behavior are shown in Figs. 4.1–4.7. Individually, these trends do not necessarily represent general behavior, since they are based on published data from specific wear tests and generally involve a limited number of materials and conditions (1–16). While limited, the data summarized in these figures illustrate the broad range of behavior that can be encountered in different wear situations. Several of these figures contain wear curves, that is, the graphical relationship between wear and usage (distance of sliding, time, number of cycles, etc.). Others illustrate the dependency of wear on various factors, such as load, roughness, speed, hardness, etc., which are significant to the design engineer. As can be seen by comparing the various graphs in these figures, a variety of plotting techniques is used, including linear, log–log, and semi-log, to summarize the behavior. The need to use such a variety of formats illustrates the variety of relationships and sensitivities that are associated with wear. The general character of the curves is often some form of nonlinear behavior. In several of these figures, a power relationship (xn) between wear and the parameter is indicated; in others, transitions or max=min behavior is seen. At the same time, linear relationships or regions of linear behavior can often be found in these figures as well. A frequently encountered behavior is the development of a period of stable wear behavior after some initial wear has taken place (1,6,8–14,17–20). A period of stable wear behavior is one in which there is a stabilization of wear mechanisms. Typically, in situations where the apparent contact area does not change with wear, this is also a period of lower and constant wear rate, after a initial period of higher and changing wear rate. This type of behavior is shown in Figs. 4.8 and 4.9. In such situations, the initial period is usually referred to as break-in. Break-in behavior results from surface and near-surface changes as a result of relative motion and wear and the emergence of different mechanisms. This break-in effect is in addition to and different from the run-in effect associated with conforming contacts. With nominally conforming contacts, there can be an apparent break-in period when a linear wear measure is used, such as scar depth or width. In this case, the depth wear rate decreases as true conformity is established by wear, even if there is no other change occurring. However, other break-in type changes are also common with run-in. An additional discussion of break-in behavior can be found in Sec. 4.4. The morphology of the wear scar is generally different in the break-in and stable wear periods. Stable wear behavior is generally characterized by stable morphology. Volume wear rates are often constant in stable wear periods, as indicated previously. However, short-term cyclic variations and slowly decreasing wear rates are also possible in these periods (4,21).


Figure 4.1 The effect of hardness on wear in several situations. ‘‘A’’, two-body abrasion of cast irons and steels; ‘‘B’’, sliding against paper; ‘‘C’’, sliding contact; ‘‘D’’, rolling contact. (‘‘A’’ from Ref. 9; ‘‘B’’ from Ref. 75.)


Figure 4.2 The effect of roughness in sliding. ‘‘A’’, steel against steel; ‘‘B’’, plastic against stainless steel. (‘‘A’’ from Ref. 10; ‘‘B’’ from Ref. 16.)

This distinction between initial and long-term wear behavior is significant for several reasons. One is that run-in and break-in are precursors to stable wear behavior. For the designer or engineer, this means that suitable break-in may be required to obtain the stable period of low wear rate needed for long life. If this break-in does not occur, higher wear rates and unstable behavior might persist, resulting in reduced life. It is also important in engineering because it is sometimes necessary to take into account the magnitude of the wear associated with this initial period. It is also significant in terms of its relationship to wear studies. To the investigator, this stable period provides a convenient region for wear study. It is typically the type of region


Figure 4.3 The influence of materials on wear in different situations. ‘‘A’’, abrasion of borided materials; ‘‘B’’, lubricated sliding against 52100 steel; ‘‘C’’, Au–Au sliding; ‘‘D’’, solid particle erosion. (‘‘A’’ from Ref. 9; ‘‘B’’ from Ref. 4; ‘‘C’’ from Ref. 101; and ‘‘D’’ from Ref. 9.).

where wear rates, wear coefficients, and mechanisms are likely to be studied. However, tests have to be of sufficient duration that all run-in and break-in behavior have ceased. In some wear situations, it is also possible that initial wear rates might be lower than longer-term wear rates. This is generally the result of initial surface films or layers, which act as lubricants and are gradually worn away. Such an effect is more common with unlubricated tribosystems than with lubricated tribosystems. The effect of break-in and run-in illustrates another general aspect of wear behavior that needs to be recognized. This is that the immediate or current wear behavior can be influenced by earlier wear. In addition to the effect of break-in and run-in on longer-term wear, the influence of wear debris is another illustration. Since wear debris can be trapped in the wear region and cause further wear, its characteristics can influence current wear



behavior, while the prior wear behavior will determine the characteristics of the debris. For example, the occurrence of initial coarse debris as the result of a momentary overload condition or lubrication failure might inhibit the development of a mild, stable wear region that is more typical of the wear system. The momentary introduction of a small amount of abrasive into a system might trigger such a sequence as well. Wear behavior is frequently characterized as being mild or severe (14,16,22–25). Mild wear is generally used to describe wear situations in which the wear rate is relatively small and the features of the wear scar are fine. Severe wear, on the other hand, is associated with higher wear rates and scars with coarser features. For reference, Fig. 4.10 shows wear scars that are representative of mild and severe wear. Most materials can exhibit both mild and severe behavior, depending on the specifics of the wear system in which they are used. Frequently, the transition from mild to severe are abrupt. Figure 4.11 illustrates such a transition for polymers. Mild wear behavior is generally required for engineering applications. In cases where severe wear behavior must be accepted, maintenance is high and lives are short.


Figure 4.4 The effect of load. ‘‘A’’, ‘‘B’’, and ‘‘C’’, unlubricated sliding against steel; ‘‘D’’, general sliding and rolling. (‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B’’ from Ref. 5; ‘‘C’’ from Ref. 9.)




Figure 4.5 The effect of speed. ‘‘A’’, PTFE sliding against polyethylene; ‘‘B’’, unlubricated steel against steel; ‘‘C’’, unlubricated iron against steel. (‘‘A’’ from Ref. 6; ‘‘B’’ from Ref. 13; ‘‘C’’ from Ref. 9. ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B’’ reprinted with permission from ASME. ‘‘C’’ reprinted with permission from ASM International.)


Figure 4.6 The effect of ambient temperature. ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B’’ show the effect in several cases of unlubricated sliding between metal interfaces. (‘‘A’’ from Ref. 13; ‘‘B’’ from Ref. 14.)


Figure 4.7 Wear behavior as a function of duration. ‘‘A’’, ceramic=steel sliding; ‘‘B’’, steel=steel sliding; ‘‘C’’, block-on-ring tests; ‘‘D’’, polymer composite=cermet sliding; ‘‘E’’, impact; ‘‘F’’, erosion; ‘‘G’’ , slurry abrasion. (‘‘A’’ from Ref. 77; ‘‘B’’ from Ref. 10; ‘‘C’’ from Ref. 15; ‘‘D’’ from Ref. 7; ‘‘E’’ from Ref. 78; ‘‘F’’ from Ref. 50; and ‘‘G’’ from Ref. 79.)





There are several factors, which contribute to the general complex and varied nature of wear behavior. One factor is the number of basic wear mechanisms. Depending on the mechanism and the parameter considered, there are a mixture of linear and nonlinear relationships possible, as well as transitions in mechanisms. Consequently, a wide variety of behaviors is to be expected for different wear situations. A second factor is that wear mechanisms are not mutually exclusive and can interact in different ways. A final contributor to complex wear behavior is the modifications that take place on the wearing surfaces. As is obvious from the examination of worn surfaces, wear modifies the surface in addition to removing the material. Modifications to the topography are generally immediately apparent (e.g., scratches, pits, smearing, etc.). While less obvious, the composition of the surfaces can also be modified, as well as the mechanical properties of the surfaces. These changes to tribosurfaces are significant factors in the break-in behavior referred to previously. As a generalization, these

Figure 4.8 Wear curve showing the effect of break-in behavior.


Figure 4.9 Wear rate behavior as a result of break-in behavior.

surface modifications can be influenced by a wide variety of parameters associated with the wearing system (e.g., relative humidity, nature of the relative motion, active components of a lubricant, etc.). Since the wear mechanisms are functions of the surface parameters, the dependencies of surface modifications on this larger set of parameters can result in more complex relationships for wear. In addition, since wear can influence surface modifications, a compounding of effects can take place. Interactions and trends with wear mechanisms, wear transitions, and modifications of tribosurfaces are discussed in further detail in the following sections. The complex nature and range of wear behavior possible can generally be simplified and reduced to a practical level for engineering because of the limited range of tribosystem parameters that need to be considered. However, the range of behavior shown in Figs. 4.1–4.7, along with these observations regarding the many factors associated with wear behavior, suggests the following. As an overview, it is appropriate to consider wear behavior generally as nonlinear, with linear behavior possible under certain conditions and narrow ranges of parameters. 4.2. MECHANISM TRENDS One factor that contributes to the complex nature of wear behavior is the possibility of different wear mechanisms. Depending on the mechanism and the parameter considered, there are a mixture of linear and nonlinear relationships possible, as well as transitions. For example, the simple model for adhesive wear gives a linear-dependency on sliding, while a model for fatigue wear gives a nonlinear dependency. In an abrasive wear situation, theory supports a transition in wear behavior when the abraded material becomes harder than the abrasive. In addition, not all mechanisms depend on the same parameters in the same way. For example, the model for corrosive wear indicates an explicit dependency on sliding speed; the models for the other modes do not contain an explicit dependency on speed. Consequently, a wide variety of behaviors is to be expected for different wear situations. A contributing element to this complexity is that wear mechanisms are not mutually exclusive. Frequently wear scar morphology indicates the simultaneous or parallel occurrence of more than one mechanism (16,26–29). An illustration of this is shown in Fig. 4.12. In this sliding wear scar damage features suggestive of both single-cycle deformation and repeated-cycle deformation wear are present. The overall wear behavior of such a system


Figure 4.10 Examples of mild and severe wear scar morphologies for sliding. ‘‘Left side’’ shows an example of mild wear scars obtained in a pin-on-disk test; ‘‘Right side’’ shows severe wear scars. (From Ref. 80, reprinted with permission from ASME.)

could then be represented as the sum of individual wear processes, for example, Wtotal ¼ Ws-c-d þ Wr-c-d

ð4:1Þ

where Wtotal is the total wear, Ws-c-d is the wear due to single-cycle deformation, and Wr-c-d is the wear due to repeated-cycle deformation. Utilizing the expressions developed for single-cycle deformation and fatigue wear, Eqs. 3.25 and 3.44, and assuming that a is the fraction of the real area of contact that is wearing by single-cycle deformation, the following equation can be proposed for this system: Wtotal ¼ 2k

tan y aP S þ OMGGt ð1 aÞP1þt=3 S p p


ð4:2Þ

Figure 4.11 Transitions from mild to severe wear in the case of sliding wear of plastics. ‘‘A’’, polyimide=steel couple in a thrush washer test; ‘‘B’’, TFE composite=steel couple in a journal bearing test. (‘‘A’’ from Ref. 23; ‘‘B’’ from Ref. 81.)

Note that in this equation, P is the normal load and S is the distance of sliding. The other symbols are as previously defined for Eqs. (3.25) and (3.44). Since each of the individual mechanisms do not depend on the same parameters in the same manner, the dependency of Wtotal on these parameters would depend on the relative contribution of the individual mechanisms to the total wear. For example, if a is very small, that is to say single-cycle deformation is minor, the load dependency would be nonlinear and the wear behavior would not be sensitive to the sharpness and size of the asperities. If a was near unity (i.e., fatigue is minor), the wear would be sensitive to the asperities’ sharpness and the load dependency would approach a linear one. For intermediate values of a, there would be both a nonlinear dependency on load and a dependency on asperity size and shape, which


Figure 4.12 Sliding wear scars on ceramics, showing evidence of single-cycle deformation and repeated-cycle deformation wear. (From Ref. 82; reprinted with permission from ASME.)

would be different from the ones associated with either mechanism. This trend is illustrated in Fig. 4.13, where it is assumed that a can be related to the load range. For light loads, it was assumed that fatigue is negligible but at high loads, it predominates. Consequently, the possibility of the simultaneous occurrence of several mechanisms can lead to a wider range of behavior than those based on the individual mechanisms.

Figure 4.13 Example of combined wear behavior when there are two mechanisms present.


The individual mechanisms can also interact in a sequential fashion, giving rise to another possible factor for complex wear behavior. For example, fatigue wear can weaken the surface by the formation of cracks and allowing an adhesive event to remove the wear particle. Mathematically, the wear may be described by the equation for adhesive wear, where the wear coefficient K is now dependent on the fatigue parameters of the system in addition to the normal parameters associated with adhesion. In Eq. 3.7 for adhesive wear, K is the probability that a given junction will result in wear. Assuming that this probability is proportional to the fatigue wear rate (see Eq. (3.44)), the following equation may be proposed for such a system:

W¼

OMGGt P2þt=3 K 0 S 3p

ð4:3Þ

where K 0 is the constant of proportionality. Comparison of this equation with Eq. 3.7 illustrates the complexity that the concept of one wear mechanism initiating another introduces. Additional dependencies are introduced (e.g., the fatigue parameter t), and other dependencies change (e.g., the dependency on load is no longer linear). Another example of this type of sequential interaction would be either fatigue or adhesive wear mechanisms forming debris, which then acts as an abrasive. In considering these ways in which the basic wear mechanisms may interact in a given situation, two points should be noted. In the case of parallel interaction, modification of the parameters effecting one of the wear modes may have little or no effect on the overall wear behavior. However, in the sequential interaction, it should always have an effect on the overall behavior. With the first example, changing parameters to reduce fatigue wear would have negligible effect on the wear in the low load range, where abrasion predominates. In the second example, the overall wear would be reduced since it would tend to reduce the effective probability of an adhesive failure. The second point to note is that it is also possible to have both types of interactions (i.e., parallel and sequential) occur in a given wear system. This confounded type of interaction can also contribute to the complex nature of wear behavior. While such interactions may make it necessary to consider more than one type of mechanism as significant, it is frequently not necessary to do so. It is generally possible to consider one mechanism or type of mechanism as being the dominant and controlling mechanism within limited ranges of tribosystem parameters, as illustrated by the wear maps discussed in Sec. 3.9. In addition to different wear mechanisms being dominant mechanisms in different ranges of operating parameters, wear mechanisms also differ in their severity. This is illustrated in Fig. 4.14, where nominal ranges of a normalized and dimensionless wear rate, O, for different mechanisms for sliding are plotted. The dimensionless wear rates are based on wear rates from wear situations in which the mechanism is considered to be the dominant type. There are several equivalent ways of defining this rate, which is shown by the following equations: p p O¼ ð4:4Þ W0 ¼ h0 P s

This wear coefficient, O, is equivalent to the wear coefficient, K, of a linear wear relationship, W ¼ K PS=p, where P is load, S is sliding distance, p is hardness, and W is wear volume.


Figure 4.14 Nominal empirical ranges for normalized wear rates [(wear volume hardness)= (distance load)] for different types of generic wear mechanisms.

O¼

p W _ P

v

¼

p h_ s v

ð4:5Þ

In these equations, W is wear volume; h, wear depth; p, hardness; P, load; v, velocity; s, contact pressure. The dot indicates wear rate with respect to time and the apostrophe indicates wear rate with respect to sliding distance. In this figure, the limiting value for O, which can be tolerated in engineering, is also indicated. Applications requiring long life and low wear values often require values of O one to two orders of magnitude lower than this. It can be seen from this figure that adhesive, severe single-cycle deformation, severe repeated-cycle deformation, and thermal mechanisms tend to be undesirable forms of wear. Wear rates associated with these mechanisms tend to be higher than those of the other types and generally unacceptable for two reasons. One is their intrinsic severity, as indicated by the ranges of O. The other is that these forms of wear tend to occur at higher velocities, pressures and loads than the milder forms of wear, essentially compounding their undesirability in applications. There is an overall trend in wear behavior with contact stress. In general, the severity of wear increases with increasing stress. Not only does the severity of individual wear mechanism tend to increase with increasing stress, increasing stress tends to lead to the occurrence of more severe wear mechanisms. Both trends are indicated in the wear maps shown in Figs. 3.81–3.83 and in 4.15. Empirical models for sliding, rolling, and impact wear also illustrate such a trend, as well as the general nature of the wear mechanisms. For many wear situations, it is possible to correlate wear severity with the ratio of a


Figure 4.15 Empirical wear rate map for dry sliding wear of an aluminum block against a hard steel ring. Contact stress increases with load. (From Ref. 80, reprinted with permission from Elsevier Sequoia S.A.)

contact stress to a strength parameter, such as contact pressure to hardness (30); see Secs. 3 and Chapter 2 in Engineering Design for Wear: Second Edition, Revised and Expanded (EDW 2E). Important corollaries to these two trends are that materials and other design parameters should be selected to avoid severe wear mechanisms from occurring and that stress levels should be reduced as much as possible to minimize wear.

4.3. TRIBOSURFACES Since wear is primarily a surface phenomenon, surface properties are major factors in determining wear behavior. Changes to surfaces are a frequent factor in transitions in wear and friction behavior. Before discussing these, it is important to consider the general nature of a tribosurface. A tribosurface consists of the basic or nominal material of the surface plus any layers and films that are present. This is illustrated by the schematic cross-section for a typical metal surface shown in Fig. 4.16. There are numerous surface properties that are associated with wear and friction that can affect overall behavior


Figure 4.16 Illustration of an unlubricated metal surface. The worked layer is a region of the bulk material that is worked-hardened as result of maching. The Beilby Layer is an amorphous or microcrytalline layer, resulting from melting and surface flow of molecular layers during machining and hardened by subsequent quenching. While all these layers are typical of most engineering surfaces, an oxide layer, Beilby Layer, and worked layer may not be present with all metals and maching processes. In general, the thickness and properties of these layers depend on the material, environmental exposure, and maching processes. (From Ref. 84, reprinted with permission from The McGraw-Hill Companies.)

and cause transitions. The models for the primary wear mechanisms indicate that geometrical, mechanical, physical, and chemical parameters are involved. Geometrical parameters include the overall shape of the contacting surfaces, as well as the distribution and shapes of asperities. Mechanical parameters would include elastic moduli, hardness, and fatigue parameters. Physical parameters could be work hardening characteristics, diffusion constants, and lattice parameters. Composition and polarity of the surface are examples of chemical factors. Thicknesses and other properties of the various layers and films are additional factors. While surface parameters influence wear, surface parameters can be influenced by wear. In effect, this means that wear and surface parameters are mutually dependent and a stable wear situation would be one in which the surface properties do not change with wear. If the wear process and the set of surface parameters are not mutually consistent, the wear behavior will be unstable until a mutually consistent condition can be established. This interdependency means that in addition to identifying the relationships between wear and the initial parameters of tribosurfaces, as was done in the treatment of the primary mechanisms, it is necessary to consider how the tribosurface may be modified as a result of wear. The principle types of modifications are treated in this section. The manner in which these modifications can result in transitions in wear behavior is discussed in the subsequent section. Wear can cause geometrical changes both on a macro- and micro-scale. On a macroscale, the nature of the contact between two bodies changes, effecting the distributions of stress and load across the contact region. An example of this would be a contact situation, which initially is a point contact (e.g., a sphere against a plane). As wear occurs, one of the


Figure 4.17 Changes in the contact configuration as a result of wear for a sphere sliding against a plane. ‘‘A’’, only the sphere wears; ‘‘B’’, only the flat wears; and ‘‘C’’, both the sphere and the flat wears.

three contact situations indicated in Fig. 4.17 evolves. In two of these cases, the final contact situation is a conforming contact. In the third, ‘‘b’’, it changes from a point contact to a line contact. This type of change is further illustrated in Fig. 4.18, which shows profilometer traces of a flat surface and a sphere after some wear was produced on the flat surface. Another example of a macro-geometrical change is that which takes place between two flat surfaces, which are initially misaligned. Initially, the contact is confined to the region near the edges; with wear, however, contact over the entire surface can be established. Such changes are extremely significant in situations in which the wear depends on stress, such as in mild sliding and impact wear situations (3,31). Such a change is related to run-in behavior. One way for micro-geometrical changes to occur is the result of asperity deformation as a result of contact. An example of this is shown in Fig. 4.19, where a profilometer trace through a wear track on a flat surface is shown. A micrograph of the surface is also shown. In this case, the tips of the asperities in the worn region appear to be more rounded; asperity heights appear to be more uniform in the wear track as well. In general, initial wear in sliding and rolling systems tends to increase the radius of curvature of the asperities and to provide a more uniform distribution of asperity heights. These changes tend to increase the number of asperities involved in the contact as well as to reduce the stress associated with each junction. Initially, the asperity deformation tends to be in the plastic range, while subsequent engagements would likely


Figure 4.18 (‘‘A’’) Profilometer traces of sphere and a wear scar, produced by the sphere, are superimposed, illustrating the conforming nature of the worn contact. (‘‘B’’) Micrographs of the sphere and flat after wear are also shown. (Unlubricated sliding between a 52100 steel sphere and a 1050 steel flat.) (From Ref. 52, reprinted with permission from Elsevier Sequoia S.A.)

result in elastic deformation as a result of these changes. As material is worn from the surface, the general result is a different micro-geometry or topography, characteristic of the wear processes involved. An example of this would be the striations that result from abrasive wear; another might be adhesive wear fragments attached to the surface or the roughening on the surface caused by erosion. Micrographs illustrating the morphological features of worn surfaces are shown in Fig. 4.20 for a variety of conditions. Significant changes in surface topography are evident in these micrographs. In addition to these geometrical changes associated with wear, other changes which influence the physical and mechanical properties of tribosurfaces can occur, as can changes in material composition and structure. An example of these types of changes is the

Figure 4.19 An example of asperity modifications in the early stages of wear. The micrograph and the profilometer trace are for a Monel C Platen, worn by a 52100 steel sphere in lubricated sliding. The wear track is located between the vertical lines on the trace. (From Ref. 52, reprinted with permission from Elsevier Sequoia S.A.)


Figure 4.20 Examples of changes in surface topography as a result of wear under different conditions. ‘‘A’’, fretting; ‘‘B’’, sliding; ‘‘C’’, erosion; ‘‘D’’, erosion; ‘‘E’’, rolling; ‘‘F’’, sliding; ‘‘G’’ and ‘‘H’’, compound impact; ‘‘I’’, erosion; ‘‘J’’, slurry erosion. (‘‘A’’ from Ref. 85; ‘‘B’’ from Ref. 83; ‘‘C’’ from Ref. 87; ‘‘D’’ from Ref. 88; ‘‘E’’ from Ref. 89; ‘‘F’’ from Ref. 52; ‘‘G’’ and ‘‘H’’ from Ref. 3; ‘‘I’’ from Ref. 90; and ‘‘J’’ from Ref. 91. ‘‘A’’, ‘‘B’’, ‘‘E’’, ‘‘I’’, and ‘‘J’’ reprinted with permission from ASME; ‘‘G’’ and ‘‘H’’ reprinted with permission from Elsevier Sequoia S.A.; and ‘‘C’’ and ‘‘D’’ reprinted with permission from ASM International.)



oxidative or chemical wear process discussed in the section on wear mechanisms. In this case, an oxide or other type of reacted layer is formed on the surface, as a result of the wear. In general, the properties of the reacted layer will be different from those of the parent material or any initial oxide. Another way in which the chemical make-up of the tribosurface can be modified is conceptually illustrated in Fig. 4.21. Wear fragments from the counterface, or wear fragments from the reacted layer, are worked into the surface, forming a composite structure. An example of this type of phenomenon in the case of impact wear is shown in Fig. 4.22. Similar observations have been made for sliding wear (32–34).


Figure 4.21 Mechanically mixed surface layer.

Structural changes can also take place as the result of the wearing action (e.g., plastic deformation and flow). In the case of metals, changes in dislocation density and grain size at or near the surface are frequently observed in wearing situations. Figure 4.23 shows some examples of this behavior. Frequently, these changes result in a harder, more brittle surface. When hardness changes as a result of wear, it is generally found that wear behavior is related to the modified hardness. This is also true, when hardness is affected by frictional heating, as described further in this section. Another example is the formation of a layer composed of extremely fine grains and flow-like striations found in some sliding wear situations (Fig. 4.24). As is apparent in this figure, the morphology of this layer is very suggestive of fluid flow, and shows both laminar and turbulent characteristics in different regions. Careful examination of the

Figure 4.22 Example of mechanical mixing under impact conditions between a steel sphere coated with a thin layer of NI (5000 A) and a Cu flat. A cross-section through the wear scar in the Cu is shown in ‘‘A’’. In ‘‘B’’, an EDX dot map of NI is shown for this region, confirming the mixing. (From Ref. 92, reprinted with permission from Elsevier Sequoia S.A.)


Figure 4.23 Examples of the dislocation networks formed and grain size changes produced during wear. ‘‘A’’ is the dislocation networks formed beneath the wear surface of a Cu specimen during erosion. ‘‘B’’ shows the grain growth occurring in Cu in a small amplitude sliding wear situation. (‘‘A’’ from Ref. 93, reprinted with permission form ASTM; ‘‘B’’ from Ref. 94, reprinted with permission from ASME.)

micrograph shows the formation of what appears to be an extrusion lip. Because of this lip formation and the general characteristics of the layer, fine grains, and flow characteristics (which are very similar to behavior seen in metal working operations), this mode of wear has been referred to as extrusion wear (35).

Figure 4.24 Example of subsurface flow during wear: ‘‘A’’ for sliding, ‘‘B’’ for impact. (‘‘A’’ from Ref. 95, reprinted with permission from ASM International; ‘‘B’’ from Ref. 92, reprinted with permission from Elsevier Sequoia S.A.)


Figure 4.25 Example of preferential wear of a soft matrix. This micrograph is of a coating, which contained diamond particles in an Rh matrix, after it was worn by sliding against a paper surface coated with magnetic ink. (From Ref. 36.)

Preferential wearing of one phase of a multiphase material can also result in a change in the composition of the surface and influence wear behavior. An example of this would be the preferential removal of a soft matrix around a hard filler, grain, or particle (36). This situation is illustrated in Fig. 4.25. This type of action can also produce topological or roughness changes. A further way by which surface composition can change is shown in Fig. 4.26. This is by preferential diffusion of certain elements (37), either to the surface of a material or into the surface of the mating material. Solubility and temperature are strong factors in this type of mechanism. This is frequently a factor in wear situations involving high temperatures, such as in machine tool wear. Up to this point, metals have been used to illustrate composition and structural changes in tribosurfaces; however, such changes are not confined to this class of materials. Similar changes can take place with other classes but they may be of different types, which depend on the basic nature of the material. With polymers, for example, changes in both the degree of crystallinity, chain length, and degree of cross-linking have been observed. The formation of different polymer structures has also been observed to occur as a result of wear (38–41).


Figure 4.26 An example of a diffusion layer formed on a tool surface during machining. The diagram shows the location of the diffusion layer on the tool surface. (From Ref. 96.)

A factor that has to be included with the consideration of tribosurfaces is surface temperature. In addition to leading to thermal wear mechanisms, discussed in Sec. 3.6, surface temperatures can affect wear behavior in other ways. As indicated in that section, there are several factors which influence surface temperature, such as the heat energy generated at the surface, the thermal conductivities of the materials, heat conduction paths away from the interfaces, and ambient temperature. This is illustrated in Fig. 4.27. Because the heat or thermal energy is generated in the surface (e.g., frictional heating in sliding), surface temperatures are generally higher than elsewhere in the materials, which can influence the nature of the surface in two ways. One is simply related to the fact that most material properties are temperature dependent. As a result, the surface will exhibit material behavior appropriate to that elevated temperature. For example, the hardness of metals can decrease with surface temperature. This type of effect is particularly important in the case of polymer wear. With polymers degradation in wear performance is generally observed with the surface temperatures approaching and exceeding the glass transition temperature (23,42,43). A second way in which surface temperature can influence tribosurfaces is through the temperature dependencies that the surface modification processes have. Elevated temperature can increase reaction rates, influence phase changes, increase diffusion, and enhance flow characteristics of materials.


Figure 4.27 Factors affecting surface temperatures.

In addition to these possibilities, removal of existing layers and the formation of new layers or films, such as, transfer and third-body films, can modify tribosurfaces, and in turn affect wear behavior (7,16,24). Typically, a change in the coefficient friction can be found with changes in oxide structure, removal of other films, and the formation of tribofilms (44). Removal of existing films and oxides is often a contributing factor of break-in behavior (45). Many investigators have identified the formation of transfer and third-body films and their importance in wear and friction behavior (6,7,18,26,33,38,39,42,46–49). The formation of these tribofilms and related wear processes are described in Sec. 3.7. While it is convenient for discussion to consider separately the various ways tribosurfaces can undergo changes as a result of wear, it must be recognized that under actual wearing conditions these changes can be going on simultaneously and in an interactive fashion. For example, a flow layer might also contain a mixture of material from both surfaces, as well as oxides of these materials. An illustration of what typical conditions might exist on worn surfaces is shown in Fig. 4.28. 4.4. WEAR TRANSITIONS These changes to tribosurfaces, coupled with the possibility of different wear mechanisms, can result in dramatic changes or transitions in wear behavior (44). The break-in phenomenon discussed previously is an example of such a transition. Break-in transitions tend to be gradual and are usually attributed to the modification of the surfaces by such mechanisms as oxide formation, transfer film formation, and asperity profile modification that


Figure 4.28 Possible state of a surface modified by wear.

are associated with the wearing action. Transitions, which are associated with changes in parameters, such as load, speed, relative humidity, or temperature, tend to be much more abrupt and are frequently associated with a transition between mild and severe wear. In either case, there can be changes in relative contributions and interactions of the several possible wear mechanisms, along with changes in the characteristics of the wearing surfaces. To illustrate the general nature of such transitions and the possible factors involved, several examples will be considered. During a break-in period, the wear rate is higher than after the break-in period. In this sense, break-in behavior can be thought of as a transition from a severer to a milder mode of wear. A wear curve, showing typical break-in behavior, is presented in Fig. 4.29. In this case, the wear is the wear of the plastic member of a cermet-plastic sliding wear system. The micrographs in the figure show the appearance of the surfaces after the break-in period. The break-in period in this case is associated with the formation of transfer and third-body films on the surfaces. Break-in behavior is not limited to polymer–metal sliding systems but occurs for other systems and in other situations. However, the mechanism involved may be different. For example, the fretting wear behavior of a metallic system is plotted in Fig. 4.30. A break-in period is evident and oxide film formations, along with topological changes, are associated with this period. The appearance of the wear scar in the break-in period and the stable period are different. These are shown in Fig. 4.31. Another example for a metallic system is shown in Fig. 4.32. In this case, it is for a more normal or gross sliding situation. However, the explanation is the same, oxide formation with surface temperature being a driving factor. The insets show how the wear surface appears in both regions. In addition to the occurrence of break-in other transitions can occur as a function of duration of the wearing action. An example of this is the behavior found in some four-ball wear tests with lubricated metal pairs. This is shown in Fig. 4.33. In this particular case, there appears to be several identifiable regions of wear behavior. The initial break-in period, a region of steady state wear, followed by a period of zero wear rate, ultimately leads to a region of rapid or accelerated wear. The appearances of the worn surfaces in these regions are different. The overall behavior is likely the result of a complex relationship between film formation, topological modification, changing wear mechanisms, and lubricant effects. A possible scenario is that oxide and other films form in the two initial periods, along with micro-smoothing of the topography, which leads to a period of very low wear rate. Ultimately, however, fatigue wear roughens the surface and disrupts the beneficial film, leading to accelerated wear.


Figure 4.29 (‘‘A’’) Wear curves for the plastic in a plastic-cermet sliding situation. The curves are for increasing roughness of the cermet. The mircrographs show the discontinuous transfer film on the counterface (‘‘B’’) and the third-body film formed on the plastic (‘‘C’’) during break-in that results in the reduction of wear rate. (From Ref. 7, reprinted with permission from ASME.)

Another example of a transition in wear behavior is shown in Fig. 4.34. This is for sliding wear of a metal–polymer system. In this case, an increase in wear rate is seen well beyond the break-in period, and is associated with the disruption of the third-body film. The data shown in the figure are for UHMWPE (ultra high molecular weight polyethylene) and were obtained in a thrust washer test. The same material, when tested in a pin-on-disk configuration, showed similar behavior (i.e., the occurrence of a transition well after break-in) (11,28). The reason for the increased wear was identified with the start of fatigue wear, as evidence by micro-cracks in the surface. These delayed contributions from fatigue wear are the result of the incubation period associated with this mechanism. Another example of transitional behavior is the PV Limit generally associated with the wear of polymers in metal–polymer and polymer–polymer sliding systems. In this case,


Figure 4.30 Break-in behavior in the case of fretting between two metals. (From Ref. 24.)

the transition is between mild and severe wear behavior. Sliding conditions above the PV Limit result in too high a temperature for the polymer, softening it to the extent that accelerated wear occurs. This behavior is illustrated in Fig. 4.35, which shows the PV Limit curve for a polyimide and the corresponding relationship between wear rate and surface

Figure 4.31 Examples of wear scar morphologies for the system referenced in Fig. 4.30. ‘‘A’’ illustrates wear scar morphology prior to the formation of a stable and continuous oxide film. ‘‘B’’ illustrates the appearance after the formation of such a film. (From Ref. 24, reprinted with permission from Elsevier Sequoia S.A.)


Figure 4.32 Example of break-in behavior as a result of oxide formation. Micrograph ‘‘A’’ shows the appearance of the wear scar prior to the formation of the oxide layer, and ‘‘B’’ shows the appearance after. (From Ref. 14, reprinted with permission from ASME.)

Figure 4.33 Time-dependent wear behavior of a lubricated metal couple in a four-ball wear test. (From Ref. 19.)


Figure 4.34 Transition in plastic wear behavior as a result of disruption of third-body film (unlubricated sliding between UHMWPE and steel. (From Ref. 16.)

Figure 4.35 Wear behavior of polyimide sliding against a steel counterface. (From Ref. 23.)


Figure 4.36 Wear behavior UHMWPE sliding against steel with and without cooling. (From Ref. 16.)

temperature. A similar transition for another polymer is indicated as a function of sliding speed in Fig. 4.36. The appearances of the polymer wear scar above and below this type of transition are different, as shown in Fig. 4.37. Above the transition, the morphology indicates the occurrence of softening and flow. The relationship between temperature, load,

Figure 4.37 Examples of polymer wear scar morphology below (A) and above (B) the mild=severe wear transition in the case of sliding. (From Ref. 97, reprinted with permission from ASME.)


Figure 4.38 Transitions in the sliding wear rate for an unlubricated steel=steel couple, associated with changes in oxide structure. (From Ref. 9.)

and speed in this type of transition can be understood by recognizing that the product of the pressure and velocity is proportional to the energy dissipated at the sliding interface, which determines the surface temperature. Metal and ceramic sliding systems also exhibit similar transitions related to temperature, load, and speed, as well as relative humidity. In general, these are usually associated with the formation of various oxides and films on the surface (5,13,14,24,33,50). Examples are shown in Figs. 38–42. Surface analysis techniques, such as microprobe, Auger and ESCA analysis have confirmed the existence of different oxides and films in these regions. The wear on one side of the transition is usually mild, while, on the other side, severe. Frequently, wear rates are found to change by as much as two orders of magnitude in these transitions. Transitions can also be associated with stress levels. For example, in the case of the impact wear of thin polymer sheets, a stress limit has been identified with the transition from mild to a severe wear region (3,41,51). Above this limit, an over-stressed condition exists and the film experiences catastrophic wear. An example of the wear in this region is shown in Fig. 4.43. A much milder form of wear occurs below that limit. In this region of mild wear, further transitions can also occur. An example of this is the impact wear behavior of elastomers (51). During the initial period of wear, the elastomer progressively deforms, asymptotically approaching some limit of deformation. After a certain point, crack formation becomes evident and there is loss of material from the surface. The appearance of the wear scar before and after this transition is shown in Fig. 4.44, along with a graph of typical wear behavior below the critical stress. For materials, which have an elastic region and a plastic region, it is also common to find different wear behavior for loading conditions in the elastic range as compared to those in the plastic range. Frequently, severe wear behavior is associated with wear in the plastic situation. An example


Figure 4.39 Differences in fretting water behavior of an unlubricated metal couple as a result of changes in oxide formation. The graph shows the influence of temperature on wear rate. The two micrographs illustrate the differences in wear scar morphology that can occur as a function of temperature. ‘‘A’’ is the condition after 120,000 cycles at 500 C; ‘‘B’’, 168,000 at 600 C. Wear was much lower at the higher temperature. (From Ref. 24, reprinted with permission from Elsevier Sequoia S.A.)


Figure 4.40 Wear rates of cast iron sliding against steel for different humidity conditions and without lubrication. (From Ref. 13.)

Figure 4.41 Wear rate as a function of load for different steels sliding against a steel counterface without lubrication. (From Ref. 5.)


Figure 4.42 Wear of SiC fretting against unlubricated 52100 steel for different relative humidity conditions. The micrograph graphs show the wear scar morphologies occurring under very dry and very moist conditions. (From Ref. 50, reprinted with permission from ASME.)

of this is shown in Fig. 4.45. A wear scar, representative of the milder wear behavior generally found in elastic situations, is also shown in the figure for comparison. These suggest that the relative contributions from the various wear mechanisms are different above and below the yield point. Typically, single-cycle deformation and adhesion would tend to predominate at stress levels above the yield point (52). A further example of a transition in wear behavior is shown in Fig. 4.46. In this case, the initial wear rate is low but with an increased number of operations, a dramatic increase in wear rate is seen. Examination of the wear scars in the two regions suggests that adhesion becomes more pronounced in the region of accelerated wear. Prior to this, several changes in the surface features were observed. One was that the surface became smoother, which contributes to increased adhesion. Discoloration of the surface was also observed to increase, suggesting increased surface temperature, which again would enhance adhesion. Wear tests with the same material system under similar stress conditions but at a much lower sliding speeds resulted in wear behavior which could be correlated with the initial


Figure 4.43 An example of ‘‘overstressed’’ impact wear behavior of polymer films. In this case, the film was a urethane coated fabric impacted by a steel hammer. (From Ref. 3, reprinted with permission from Elsevier Science Publishers.)

wear behavior in the application. It was concluded that the high sliding speed in the application was a significant factor in the surface modification that initiated the accelerated wear behavior. Several material systems were tried in this application. All the metal=metal metal and metal=ceramic systems tried exhibited this type of transition; metal=polymer systems did not but had wear rates well above the initial wear rates of these other systems. Changes in the degree or amount of lubrication provided to a sliding or rolling system can also lead to transitions in wear behavior. The wear behavior as a function of amount of lubrication is shown in Fig. 4.47. In this case, the appearance of the wear scars looked similar in both regimes. However, there is often a significant difference in wear scar appearance of a well-lubricated surface and a poorly lubricated one. Typically, this is the result of the wear changing from mild to severe between these two conditions. A further example of a transition in wear behavior is shown in Fig. 4.48 for a lubricated metallic system under combined rolling and sliding. There is a transition from mild to severe wear as a function of load and speed, analogous to PV behavior, and the transition is associated with oxide formation, softening of the metal, and lubricant rheology. The inset in the figure illustrates wear scar morphology on the two sides of the transition. Frequently, the wear above the transition in such a situation is referred to as scuffing. Transitions in wear behavior can generally be associated with changes in the appearance of the wear scar and frequently in the nature of the debris that is produced (44,53). In addition, as will be further discussed in the section on friction, changes in frictional behavior are often associated with transitions in wear behavior. These two attributes, morphology and friction, are often key in identifying and understanding these transitions and observations regarding these are useful in engineering evaluations. 4.5. GALLING Galling is a severe form of adhesive wear that can occur with sliding between metals and metals and ceramics. Localized macroscopic roughening and creation of highly deformed


Figure 4.44 Impact wear behavior of elastomers. The micrographs show the initial (‘‘A’’) and longterm (‘‘B’’) appearances of the elastomer surface. (From Ref. 51, reprinted with permission from Elsevier Sequoia S.A.)

protrusions, resulting from adhesion and plastic deformation, are distinguishing characteristics of this wear mode. Examples of galling and galls are shown in Fig. 4.49. This type of wear is generally limited to unlubricated tribosystem, unless there is a breakdown with the lubrication. Galling is stress dependent, increasing with increasing stress. A minimum contact pressure is required for galling to take place (13,14). This minimum pressure depends on the material pair, as well as on parameters that affect adhesive wear behavior. The severity of the galling also depends on ductility. Galling tends to be more severe with ductile materials than with brittle materials.


Figure 4.45 An example of severe wear behavior in a metal–metal sliding situation, when the elastic limit is exceeded, is shown in ‘‘A’’. ‘‘B’’ shows an example of milder wear when this limit is not exceeded. (From Ref. 52, reprinted with permission from Elsevier Sequoia S.A.)

The minimum contact pressure required for galling to take place is called the galling threshold stress. This threshold stress characterizes resistance to or susceptibility for galling between a pair of materials. Threshold stresses are generally determined in tests involving a single unidirectional rubbing action and examining the surfaces for evidence of galling. There is an ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) International standard test method, ASTM G98, for determining galling threshold stresses, which uses

Figure 4.46 Wear behavior on an unlubricated stainless steel print band and a Cr-plated steel platen. Wear depth is measured behind the location of a character and results from sliding at this interface during printing.


Figure 4.47 Wear of a steel=steel interface, subjected to combined impact and fretting, as a function of oil supply. (From Ref. 12.)

a single 360 rotation of a flat button pressed against a flat surface. A description of this test can be found in Sec. 9.2.9. Threshold stresses can also be determined using other methods (54–57). A tabulation of galling threshold stresses determined by such tests can be found in the appendix. Surface changes caused by wear can affect susceptibility to galling. For example, changes, such as removal of protective layers and growth of the real area of contact with increased rubbing, are likely factors for lowering threshold values. There is evidence that such effects can be significant and lower threshold values when there is repeated contact. This is illustrated by the data shown in Table 4.1, where threshold values based on a single rotation and three rotations are listed. The susceptibility to galling is also affected by surface roughness (54,56). Generally, increased Ra or center-line-average (CLA) roughness decreases the tendency for galling. This is shown in Fig. 4.50, where threshold values for a stainless steel–steel couple is plotted as a function of roughness. Extremely smooth surfaces, that is, Ra < 0.25 mm, should be avoided. The tendency for galling can be affected by other aspects of surface roughness as well. Long-wavelength waviness tends to promote galling by localizing the contact. Galling tends to be most severe when there is a lay to the surface that is perpendicular to the sliding motion and least when the lay is parallel. A surface without lay, such as produced by grit blasting, is somewhere in-between. This influence of lay is caused by the effect that the lay has on the growth and size of junctions. Material pairs, hardness, and ductility are also factors in galling behavior (56). Rankings of various metal combinations in terms of their susceptibility for galling are shown in Table 4.2. Hardness and ductility, through their effect on junction size and growth, are factors in galling. Higher hardness and fracture reduce the size of junctions. As a consequence, the severity of galling tends to be reduced by increases in hardness, reduced ductility, and brittle behavior. Galling thresholds tend to be high and galling mild for material couples that have these characteristics. Many surface hardening treatments provide all three attributes. Figure 4.51 illustrates the change in galling behavior that resulted from nitriding two stainless steel surfaces.


Figure 4.48 Transition in wear behavior under combined rolling and sliding conditions. The wear rate is much higher for loads and speeds above the curve. ‘‘A’’ shows wear scar morphology for conditions below the curve; ‘‘B’’ shows conditions above the curve. (From Ref. 98, reprinted with permission from ASME.)


Figure 4.49 Examples of wear scars on metal surfaces where galling has occurred. (‘‘A’’ from Ref. 54; ‘‘B’’ and ‘‘C’’ from Ref. 55, reprinted with permission from ASME.)

While not limited to these situations, galling tends to be a problem in two types of situations. One type of situation is when the contact is heavily loaded and the device is operating infrequently. A valve that tends to be closed most of the time and only occasionally opened would be an example of such a situation. The other type of situation is when


Table 4.1 Threshold Stresses for Galling as a Function of Cycles for Self-mated Stainless Steels Material Stainless steel S20161 S28200 S21800 T440C T304 T430 S42010 T420 S24100 S45500 S66286 Type 303

Threshold stress (MPA) Hardness 95 HRB 28 HRC 96 HRB 92 HRB 55 HRC 86 HRB 98 HRB 50 HRC 49 HRC 23 HRC 48 HRC 30 HRC 85 HRB

Single rotationa > 104 > 104 166 > 104 124 55 10 > 104 55 97 97 14 138

Triple rotation > 104 > 104 7 48 14 350 14 >350 105 14 14 284 250 >350 21 21 >350 14 14 21 28 60 14 35 21 >350 >350 138 >350 300 14 14

Kpsi 4 44 2 2 2 >51 2 >51 15 2 2 41 36 >51 3 3 >51 2 2 3 4 8 2 5 3 >51 >51 20 >51 44 2 2 (Continued )


Appendix

(Continued) Threshold Stress Material Pair

304 SS (Rb 86)

304 SS (Rc 27) 316 SS (Rb 77) 316 SS (Rb 81)

316 SS (Rb 83) 316 SS (Rb 90) 316 SS (Rb 94) 316 SS (Rc 27) 329 SS (Rc 25) 410 SS (Rb 87) 410 SS (Rc 32)

304 SS (Rb 77) 316 SS (Rb 81) 410 SS (Rc 38) 416 SS (Rc 37) 430 SS (Rb 84) 440C SS (Rc 56) 630 SS [17-4Ph] (Rc 33) 630 SS [17-4Ph] (Rc 45) 630 SS [17-4Ph] (Rc 47) Nitronic 32 (Rb 99) Nitronic 32 (Rc 43) Nitronic 50 (Rb 94) Nitronic 60 (Rb 94) 304 SS (Rb 86) 304 SS (Rc 27) 440C (Rc 55) S20910 (Rb 97) S2410 (Rc 23) Custom 450 (Rc 43) Custom 455(Rc 48) Nitronic 30 (Rb 96) 304 SS (Rb 86) 304 SS (Rc 27) Stellite 6B (Rc 45) 303 SS (Rb 81) 304 SS (Rb 77) 316 SS (Rb 81) 316 SS (Rc 27) 410 SS (Rc 38) 416 SS (Rc 37) 430 SS (Rb 84) 440C SS (Rc 56) 630 SS [17-4Ph] (Rc 45) Nitronic 32 (Rb 99) Nitronic 60 (Rb 94) 316 SS (Rb 83) 440C SS (Rc 58) Nitronic 60 (Rb 92) Waukesha 88 (Rb 77) 316 SS (Rc 27) 329 SS (Rc 27) 316 SS (Rc 27) 329 SS (Rc 25) 410 SS (Rb 87) 416 SS (Rc 38) 420 SS (Rc 50)

MPa 14 14 21 165 14 21 14 14 14 210 90 28 >350 55 28 28 69 >104 21 124 41 28 17 240 21 14 14 55 14 290 14 14–255 14 21 260 48 7 35 >350 35 14 14 7 7 28 21

Kpsi 2 2 3 24 2 2 2 2 2 30 13 4 >51 8 4 4 10 >15 3 18 6 4 2.5 35 3 2 2 8 2 42 2 2–37 2 3 38 7 1 5 >51 5 2 2 1 1 4 3 (Continued )


Appendix


410 SS (Rc 34) 410 SS (Rc 38)

410 SS (Rc 43) 416 SS (Rb 83) 416 SS (Rb 95) 416 SS (Rc 32) 416 SS (Rc 34) 416 SS (Rc 37)

416 SS (Rc 37) 416 SS (Rc 40) 420 SS (Rc 49)

420 SS (Rc 55) 430 SS (Rb 84)

416 SS (Rc 40) 420 SS (Rc 48) 303 SS (Rb 81) 304 SS (Rb 77) 316 SS (Rb 81) 410 SS (Rc 38) 416 SS (Rc 37) 430 SS (Rb 84) 440C SS (Rc 56) 630 SS [17-4Ph] (Rc 45) Nitronic 32 (Rb 99) Nitronic 60 (Rb 94) 410 SS (Rc 43) 440C (Rc 55) 416 SS (Rc 32) 416 SS (Rb 95) 416 SS (Rb 83) 416 SS (Rc 32) 430 SS (Rb 90) 301 SS (Rb 87) 303 SS (Rb 81) 304 SS (Rb 77) 316 SS (Rb 81) 410 SS (Rc 38) 416 SS (Rc 37) 430 SS (Rb 84) 440 SS (Rc 55) 440C SS (Rc 56) 630 SS [17-4Ph] (Rc 45) 20Cr-80Ni (Rb 89) Nitronic 32 (Rb 99) Nitronic 60 (Rb 94) 410 SS (Rc 32) 416 SS (Rc 37) 410 SS (Rc 34) 410 SS (Rc 32) 420 SS (Rc 49) Nitraonic 60 (Rb 96) 420 SS (Rc 55) 303 SS (Rb 81) 304 SS (Rb 77) 316 SS (Rb 81) 410 SS (Rc 38) 416 SS (Rc 37) 430 SS (Rb 84) 440C SS(Rc 56) 630 SS [17-4Ph] (Rc 45)

MPa 28 21 28 14 14 21 28 21 21 21 320 >350 21 35 76 21 76 42 21 21 60 165 290 28 90 21 159 145 14 50 310 >350 28 62 28 21 55 >345 125 14 14 14 21 21 14 14 21

Kpsi 4 3 4 2 2 3 4 3 3 3 46 >51 3 5 11 3 11 6 3 3 9 24 42 4 13 3 23 21 2 7 45 >51 4 9 4 3 8 >50 18 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 (Continued )


Appendix


430 SS (Rb 90) 430 SS (Rb 98) 430F SS (Rb 92) 430C SS (Rc 56)

440C SS (Rc 58)

630 SS [17-4Ph] (Rc 33)

630 SS [17-4Ph] (Rc 36) 630 SS [17-4Ph] (Rc 38)

630 SS [17-4Ph] (Rc 41)

630 SS [17-4Ph] (Rc 43) 630 SS [17-4Ph] (Rc 44) 630 SS [17-4Ph] (Rc 45)

Nitronic 32 (Rb 99) Nitronic 60 (Rb 94) 416 SS (Rc 34) 430 SS (Rb 98) 430F SS (Rb 92) 301 SS (Rb 87) 303 SS (Rb 81) 304 SS (Rb 77) 304 SS (Rb 86) 316 SS (Rb 81) 410 SS (Rc 38) 410 SS (Rc 43) 416 SS (Rc 37) 430 SS (Rb 84) 440C SS (Rc 56) 440C SS (Rc 59) 630 SS [17-4Ph] (Rc 45) Nitronic 32 (Rb 99) Nitronic 60 (Rb 94) 1020 (Rb 90) 316 SS (Rb 90) 440C SS (Rc 58) 17-5PH (Rc 43) 17-5PH nitrided (Rc 70) S30430 (Rb 74) Nitronic 60 (Rb 92) Stellite 6 (Rc 42) Tribaloy 400 (Rc 48) 304 SS (Rb 77) 630 SS [17-4Ph] (Rc 34) Nitronic 60 (Rb 96) Nitronic 60 (Rb 94) S13800 (Rc 46) S24100 (Rc 23) Custom 455 (Rc 48) 201 SS (Rb 94) S17700 (Rc 41) Nitronic 32 (Rb 94) Nitronic 32 (Rb 43) 631 SS (Rc 43) Waukesha 88 (Rb 77) 303 SS (Rb 81) 304 SS (Rb 77) 316 SS (Rb 81) 410 SS (Rc 38) 416 SS (Rc 37)

MPa 21 250 21 10 14 21 35 21 28 250 21 35 145 14 75 80 21–76 >350 >350 14 7 35–75 7 >500 83 14 55 140 14 35 >350 >350 14 76 55 14 21 75 21 21 >350 14 14 14 21 14

Kpsi 3 36 3 1.5 2 3 5 3 4 36 3 5 21 2 11 12 3–11 >51 >51 2 1 5–11 1 >73 12 2 8 20 2 5 >51 >51 2 11 8 2 3 11 3 3 >51 2 2 2 3 2 (Continued )


Appendix


630 SS [17-4Ph] (Rc 47)

631 SS (Rc 43) 17-5Ph (Rc 43)

17-5Ph nitrided (Rc 70) 660 SS (Rc 28) N08020 (Rb 87) S13800 (Rc 46)

S17700 S17700 S18200 S20900 S20910

(Rc 41) (Rc 44) (Rb 98) (Rb 96) (Rb 95)

S20910 (Rb 97) S20910 (Rc 34) S24100 (Rc 21) S24100 (Rc 23)

S24100 (Rc 43) S30430 (Rb 74) S66286 (Rc 30) 20 Cr-80Ni (Rb 89)

Ti-6Al-4V (Rc 36)

430 SS (Rb 84) 440C SS (Rc 56) 630 SS [17-4Ph] (Rc 45) S13800 (Rc 46) S17700 (Rc 44) Custom 450 (Rc 48) Nitronic 32 (Rb 99) Nitraonic 60 (Rb 94) 304 SS (Rb 77) 630 SS [17-4Ph] (Rc 47) 631 SS (Rc 47) 630 SS [17-4Ph] (Rc 43) 440C SS (Rc 58) Stellite 6 (Rc 42) Tribaloy 400 (Rc 48) 440C SS (Rc 58) 660 SS (Rc 28) Nitronic 60 (Rb 94) N08020 (Rb 87) Nitronic 60 (Rb 92) 630 SS [17-4Ph] (Rc 38) 630 SS [17-4Ph] (Rc 45) S13800 (Rc 46) Nitronic 60 (Rb 96) 630 SS [17-4Ph] (Rc 41) 630 SS [17-4Ph] (Rc 44) S1820 (Rb 98) S20900 (Rb 96) S24100 (Rc 43) Nitronic 60 (Rb 96) S20910 (Rb 97) 304 SS (Rb 86) S24100 (Rc 23) 201 SS (Rb 94) 304 SS (Rb 86) 630 SS [17-4Ph] (Rc 39) S20910 (Rc 34) S24100 (Rb 23) S20910 (Rb 95) S30430 (Rb 74) 440C SS (Rc 55) S66286 (Rc 30) 416 SS (Rc 37) Nitronic 60 (Rb 94) Waukesha 88 (Rb 77) Nitronic 60 (Rb 94)

MPa 21 21 14 62 14 76 >350 >350 14 69 14 21 7 35 48 >500 21 >350 14 48 14 62 21 >345 21 14 35 48 90 >345 35 69 55 284 >104 76 55 97 90 35 83 14 50 250 >350 >350

Kpsi 3 3 2 9 2 11 >51 >51 2 10 2 3 1 5 7 >73 3 >51 2 7 2 9 3 >50 3 2 5 7 13 >50 5 10 8 36 >15 11 8 14 13 5 12 2 7 36 >51 >51 (Continued )


Appendix


Custom 450 (Rc 29) Custom 450 (Rc 33) Custom 450 (Rc 38) Custom 450 (Rc 43)

Custom Custom Custom Custom

450 455 455 455

(Rc (Rc (Rc (Rc

48) 36) 43) 48)

Gall Tough (Rb 95) Hard Anodized Nitronic 30 (Rb 96)

Nitronic 30 (Rc 35) Nitronic 32 (Rb 94)

Nitronic 32 (Rb 98)

Nitronic 32 (Rc 43)

Nitronic 50 (Rb 94)

Custom 450 (Rc 29) Nitronic 30 (Rb 96) Custom 450 (Rc 33) Custom 450 (Rc 38) 304 SS (Rb 86) Custom 450 (Rc 43) Nitronic 30 (Rb 96) 630 SS [17-4Ph] (Rc 45) Custom 455 (Rc 36) Custom 455 (Rc 43) 304 SS (Rb 86) 630 SS [17-4Ph] (Rc 38) Custom 455 (Rc-48) Gall Tough (Rb 95) Hard Anodized 304 SS (Rb 86) Custom 450 (Rc 29) Custom 450 (Rc 43) Nitronic 30 (Rb 96) Nitronic 30 (Rc 35) Nitronic 30 (Rb 96) Nitronic 30 (Rc 35) 1034 (Rb 94) 630 SS [17-4Ph] (Rc 41) Nitronic 32 (Rc 43) 304 SS (Rb 77) 201 SS (Rb 94) 303 SS (Rb 81) 304 SS (Rb 77) 316 SS (Rb 81) 410 SS (Rc 38) 416 SS (Rc 37) 430 SS (Rb 84) 440C SS (Rc 56) 630 SS [17-4Ph] (Rc 45) Nitronic 32 (Rb 99) Nitronic 50 (Rc 34) Nitronic 60 (Rb 94) 304 SS (Rb 77) 630 SS [17-4Ph] (Rc 41) Nitronic 32 (Rb 43) Nitronic 50 (Rb 94) 304 SS (Rb 77) Nitronic 32 (Rc 43) Nitronic 50 (Rb 94) Nitronic 60 (Rb 94)

MPa 69 55 14 17 21 55 62 76 28 59 124 55 90 104 >270 41 55 62 166 104 104 62 14 75 235 50 250 >350 210 21 315 310 55 >350 >350 210 55 >350 90 21 235 90 28 90 14 >350

Kpsi 11 88 2 2.5 3 8 9 11 4 8.5 18 8 13 15 >39 6 8 9 24 15 15 9 2 11 34 7 36 >51 30 3 46 45 8 >51 >51 30 8 >51 13 3 34 13 4 13 2 >51 (Continued )


Appendix


Nitronic 50 (Rc 34) Nitronic 60 (Rb 92)

Nitronic 60 (Rb 94)

Nitronic 60 (Rb 96)

Stellite 6 (Rc 42) Stellite 6B (Rc 45)

Tribaloy 400 (Rc 48) Tribaloy 400 (Rc 54) Tribaloy 700 (Rc 47) Waukesha 88 (Rb 77)

Nitronic 32 (Rb 99) 316 SS (Rb 90) 440C (Rc 58) N08020 (Rb 87) Nitronic 60 (Rb 92) 4337 (Rc 48) 4337 (Rc 51) 301 SS (169) 303 SS (Rb 81) 304 SS (Rb 77) 316 SS (Rb 81) 410 SS (Rc 38) 416 SS (Rc 37) 420 SS (Rc 48) 430 SS (Rb 84) 440C SS (Rc 56) 630 SS [17-4Ph] (Rc 36) 630 SS [17-4Ph] (Rc 45) 660 SS (Rc 28) 20Cr-80Ni (Rb 89) Ti-6Al-4V (Rc 36) Nitronic 32 (Rb 99) Nitronic 50 (Rb 94) Nitronic 60 (Rb 94) Stellite 6B (Rc 45) 301 SS (Rb 87) 420 SS (Rc 50) 630 SS [17-4Ph] (Rc 33) S13800 (Rc 44) S20910 (Rb 95) 440C SS (Rc 58) 15-5Ph (Rc 43) 304 SS (Rb 77) 316 SS (Rb 77) Nitronic 60 (Rb 94) Stellite 6B (Rc 45) Tribaloy 400 (Rc 54) Tribaloy 700 (Rc 47) 440C SS (Rc 58) 15-5 Ph (Rc 43) Tribaloy 400 (Rc 54) Tribaloy 700 (Rc 47) 201 SS (Rb 94) 303 SS (Rb 89) 316 SS (Rb 94) 630 SS [17-4Ph] (Rc 44) 20Cr-80Ni (Rb 89)


MPa

Kpsi

55 35 14 48 14–104 >350 >350 >350 >350 >350 260 >350 >350 >350 250 >350 >350 >350 >350 250 >350 >350 >350 >350 >350 >345 >345 >350 >345 >345 55 35 240 25 >350 >350 >350 >350 140 48 >350 185 >350 >350 >350 >350 >350

8 5 2 7 2–15 >51 >51 >51 >51 >51 38 >51 >51 >51 36 >51 >51 >51 >51 36 >51 >51 >51 >51 >51 >50 >50 >51 >50 >50 8 5 35 3.5 >51 >51 >51 >51 20 7 >51 27 >51 >51 >51 >51 >51

Sources : 1. J Magee. Wear of Stainless Steels, In: P Blau, Ed., Friction, Lubrication and Wear Technology, ASM Handbook. Vol. 18. Materials Park, OH: ASM International, 1992, 710–724. 2. B Bhushan, B Gupta. Handbook of Tribology. Chapter 4. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991. 3. K Budinski. Proc Intl Conf Wear Materials ASME 171, 1981.


Glossary of Wear Mechanisms, Related Terms, and Phenomena Abrasion: A process in which hard particles or protuberances are forced against and moving along a solid surface. (See abrasive wear.) Abrasion–corrosion: A synergistic process involving both abrasive wear and corrosion, in which each of these processes is affected by the simultaneous action of the other. Abrasion erosion: Erosive wear caused by the relative motion of solid particles, which are entrained in a fluid, moving nearly parallel to a solid surface. Abrasive wear: Wear by displacement of material caused by hard particles or hard protuberances or wear due to hard particles or protuberances forced against and moving along a solid surface. Adhesive wear: Wear by transference of material from one surface to another during relative motion due to a process of solid-phase welding or wear due to localized bonding between contacting solid surfaces leading to material transfer between two surfaces or loss from either surface. (Note: Sometimes used as a synonym for dry (unlubricated) sliding wear.) Anti-wear Number (AWN): The base-10 log of the inverse of the wear coefficient. Asperity: A protuberance in the small-scale topographical irregularities of a solid surface. Atomic wear: Wear between two contacting surfaces in relative motion attributed to migration of individual atoms from one surface to the other. Beilby layer: An altered surface layer formed on a surface as a result of wear. Boundary lubricant: A lubricant that provides boundary lubrication. Boundary lubrication: A condition of lubrication in which the friction and wear behavior are determined by the properties of the surfaces and by the properties of fluid lubricants other than their bulk viscosity. Break-in: See run-in. Brinelling: Indentation of the surface of a solid body by repeated local impact or impacts, or static overload or damage to a solid bearing surface characterized by one or more plastically formed indentations brought about by overload. Brittle erosion behavior: Erosion behavior having characteristic properties that can be associated with brittle fracture of the exposed surface, such as little or no plastic flow and the formation of intersecting cracks that create erosion fragments. Brittle fracture: A form of wear in rolling, sliding, and impact contacts, characterized by the formation of tensile cracks in a single loading cycle.


Burnish (ing): To alter the original manufactured surface of a sliding or rolling surface to a more polished condition or to apply a substance to a surface by rubbing. Catastrophic wear: Rapidly occurring or accelerating surface damage, deterioration, or change of shape caused by wear to such a degree that the service life of a part is appreciably shortened or its function destroyed. Cavitation erosion: Progressive loss of original material from a solid surface due to continued exposure to cavitation or wear of a solid body moving relative to a liquid in a region of collapsing vapor bubbles that cause local high-impact pressures or temperatures. Checking: See craze cracking. Chemical wear: See corrosive wear. Coefficient of friction: Ratio of the force required to initiate or maintain motion between to bodies, F, and the force pressing these bodies together, N, F=N. Compound impact wear: Impact wear when there is a component of relative velocity parallel to the interface between the impacting bodies. Coulomb friction: A term used to indicate that the frictional force is proportional to the normal load. Corrosive wear: A wear process in which chemical or electrochemical reaction with the environment predominates. (Also called chemical wear.) Craze cracking: Irregular surface cracking associated with thermal cycling. (Also called checking.) Deformation wear: Sliding wear involving plastic deformation of the wearing surface or in impact wear of elastomers, the initial stage of wear not involving material loss but progressive deformation, generally approaching an asymptotic limit. Delamination wear: A wear process in which thin layers of material are formed and removed from the wear surface or a wear process involving the nucleation and propagation of cracks so as to form lamellar wear particles. Diffuse wear: Wear processes involving diffusion of elements from one body into the other, such as those often occurring in high-speed cutting tool wear, generally requires high temperatures. Diamond film: A carbon-composed crystalline film that has the characteristics of diamond. Diamondlike Film: A hard, non-crystalline carbon film. DLC: Diamondlike carbon coatings. Droplet erosion: Erosive wear caused by the impingement of liquid droplets on a solid surface. Dry-film lubrication: Lubrication resulting from the application of a thin film of a solid to a surface. Dry sliding wear: Sliding wear in which there is no intentional lubricant or moisture introduced into the contact area. Dynamic friction: See kinetic friction. Ductile erosion behavior: Erosion behavior having characteristic properties that can be associated with ductile fracture of the exposed solid surface, such as considerable plastic deformation preceding or accompanying material loss from the surface which can occur by gouging or tearing or by eventual embrittlement through work hardening that leads to crack formation. Electrical discharge wear: Material removal as a result of electrical discharge.


Electrical pitting: The formation of surface cavities by removal of metal as a result of an electrical discharge across an interface. Elastohydrodynamic lubrication: A form of fluid lubrication in which the friction and film thickness is a function of the deformation of the surfaces and the viscous properties of the fluid lubricant. EP lubricant: See extreme-pressure lubricant. Erosion: Loss of material from a solid surface due to relative motion in contact with a fluid that contains solid particles or progressive loss of original material from a solid surface due to mechanical interaction between that surface and a fluid, multi-component fluid, and impinging liquid, or solid particles. Erosive wear: See erosion. Erosion–corrosion: A conjoint action involving corrosion and erosion in the presence of a corrosive substance. Extreme-pressure lubricant (EP lubricant): A lubricant that imparts increased loadcarrying capacity to a rubbing surface under severe operating conditions. False Brinelling: Damage to a solid bearing surface characterized by indentations not caused by plastic deformation resulting from overload, but thought to be due to other causes such as fretting or fretting corrosion or local spots appearing when the protective film on a metal is broken continually by repeated impacts. Fatigue wear: Removal of particles detached by fatigue arising from cyclic stress variations or wear of a solid surface caused by fracture arising from material fatigue. Ferrography: Characterization of magnetic wear debris from oil samples. Flash temperature: The maximum local temperature generated at some point in a sliding contact. Flow cavitation: Cavitation caused by a decrease in static pressure induced by changes in the velocity of a flowing liquid. Fluid erosion: See liquid impingement erosion. Fluid friction: Frictional resistance due to the viscous or rheological flow of fluids. Fluid lubrication: A form of lubrication with a fluid in which the friction and thickness of the film is a function of the viscosity of the fluid. (See elastohydrodynamic and hydrodynamic lubrication.) Fracture: See brittle fracture. Fretting: Wear phenomena occurring between two surfaces having oscillatory relative motion of small amplitude. (Note: Term also can mean small-amplitude oscillatory motion.) Fretting corrosion: A form of fretting in which chemical reaction predominates. Fretting fatigue: The progressive damage to a solid surface that arises from fretting and leads to the formation of fatigue cracks. Fretting wear: See fretting. Friction: The tangential force between two bodies that opposes relative motion between these bodies. Friction coefficient: See coefficient of friction. Friction polymer: An organic deposit that is produced when certain metals are rubbed together in the presence of organic liquids or gases. Full-film lubrication: Fluid lubrication when the surfaces are completely separated by the fluid film. Galling: A severe form of scuffing associated with gross damage to the surface or failure or a form of surface damage arising between sliding solids, distinguished


by macroscopic, usually localized roughening and creation of protrusions above the original surface, often includes plastic flow or material transfer or both or a severe form of adhesive wear. Gouging abrasion: A form of high-stress abrasion in which easily observable grooves or gouges are created on the surface. Heat checking: A process in which fine cracks are formed on the surface of a body in sliding contact due to the buildup of excessive frictional heat. High-stress abrasion: A form of abrasion in which relatively large cutting force is imposed on the particles or protuberance causing the abrasion, and that produces significant cutting and deformation in the wearing surface. Hydrodynamic lubrication: A form of fluid lubrication in which the friction and film thickness is a function of the viscous properties of the fluid lubricant. Impact wear: Wear of a solid surface resulting from repeated collisions between that surface and another solid body. Impingement corrosion: A form of erosion–corrosion generally associated with the impingement of a high-velocity flowing liquid containing air bubbles against a solid surface. Incubation period: An initial amount of wearing action that is needed for the occurrence of some wear mechanisms or for these mechanisms to become detectable. IRG Transition Diagram: See transition diagram. Kinetic friction: Friction associated with sustained motion. Lapping: A surface finishing process involving motion against an abrasive embedded in a soft metal or rubbing two surfaces together with or without abrasives, for the purpose of obtaining extreme dimensional accuracy or superior surface finish. Limiting PV: The value of the PV Factor above which severe wear results. Typically use to characterize the wear behavior of plastics and other bearing materials. Liquid impact erosion: See erosion. Liquid impingement erosion: See erosion. Low-stress abrasion: A form of abrasion in which relatively low contact pressure on the abrading particles or protuberances cause only fine scratches and microscopic cutting chips to be produced. Lubricant: Any substance interposed between two surfaces in relative motion for the purpose of reducing the friction or wear between them. Lubrication: The reduction of wear or friction by the use of a lubricant. Lubricated impact wear: Impact wear with lubrication. Lubricated rolling wear: Rolling wear with lubrication. Lubricated sliding wear: Sliding wear with lubrication. Measurable-wear: In the context of the Zero and Measurable Wear Models for sliding and impact, it describes a state of wear in which the wear exceeds the magnitude of the surface roughness. Mechanical wear: Removal of material due to mechanical processes under conditions of sliding, rolling, or repeated impacts; includes adhesive wear, abrasive wear, and fatigue wear but not corrosive wear and thermal wear. Metallic wear: Typically, wear due to rubbing or sliding contact between metallic materials that exhibits the characteristics of severe wear, such as, significant plastic deformation, material transfer, and indications that cold welding of asperities possibly has taken place as part of the wear process.


Mild wear: A form of wear characterized by the removal of material in very small fragments. Mixed lubrication: A condition of lubrication in which the friction and wear behavior are determined by the properties of the surfaces and by the viscous and non-viscous properties of fluid lubricants. Oxidative wear: A corrosive wear process in which chemical reaction with oxygen or oxidizing environments predominates. Peening wear: Removal of material from a solid surface caused by repeated impacts on very small areas. Pitting: A form of wear involving the separation of particles from a surface in the form of flakes, resulting from repeated stress cycling, generally less extensive than spalling. Plowing: The formation of grooves by plastic deformation of the softer of two surfaces in relative motion. Polishing wear: An extremely mild form of wear, which may involve extremely finescale abrasion, plastics smearing of micro-asperities, and/or tribochemical material removal. PV Factor: Product of pressure and velocity. (See Limiting PV.) Quasi-hydrodynamic lubrication: See mixed lubrication. Ratcheting: A sliding wear process involving progressive deformation, ultimately leading to the formation of loose fragments. Rehbinder Effect: Modification of the mechanical properties at or near the surface of a solid, attributed to interaction with a surface-active substance or surfactant. Repeated-cycle deformation wear: Mechanical wear mechanisms requiring repeated cycles of mechanical deformation or engagement. Ridging (wear): A deep form of scratching in parallel ridges usually caused by plastic flow. Rolling-contact fatigue: Wear to a solid surface that results from the repeated stressing of a solid surface due to rolling contact between that surface and another solid surface or surfaces, generally resulting in the formation of sub-surface cracks, material pitting, and spallation. (Note: Often used as a synonym for rolling-contact wear.) See rolling-contact wear. Rolling-contact wear: Wear due to the relative motion between non-conforming solid bodies whose surface velocities in the nominal contact location are identical in magnitude, direction, and sense; most common form is rolling-contact fatigue. Run-in: An initial transition process occurring in newly established wearing contacts. (As a verb, run in, refers to an initial operation designed to improve wear and friction performance of a device.) Scoring: The formation of severe scratches in the direction of sliding or a severe form of wear characterized by the formation of extensive grooves and scratches in the direction of sliding. (Note: Sometimes also called scuffing in USA.) See scuffing and scratching. Scouring abrasion: See abrasion. Scratch: A groove produced in a solid surface by the cutting and plowing action of a sharp particle or protuberance moving along that surface. Scratching: The formation of fine scratches in the direction of sliding; a mild form of scoring.


Scuffing: Localized damage caused by the occurrence of solid-phase welding between sliding surfaces, without local surface melting or a mild degree of galling that results from the welding of asperities due to frictional heat or a form of wear occurring in inadequately lubricated tribosystems which is characterized by macroscopically observable changes in surface texture, with features related to the direction of relative motion. (Note: Sometimes also called scoring in USA.) See scoring. Selective transfer: A wear process involving the transfer and attachment of a specific species from one surface to the mating surface during sliding. Self-lubricating material: Any solid material that shows low friction without application of a lubricant. Severe wear: A form of wear characterized by removal of material in relatively large fragments. Shelling: A term used in railway engineering to describe an advanced phase of spalling. Single-cycle deformation wear: Mechanical wear mechanisms requiring only a single cycle of contact or engagement. Sliding wear: Wear due to relative sliding between two bodies in contact. Slurry abrasion: Three-body abrasive wear involving a slurry. Slurry erosion: Erosion produced by the movement of a slurry past a solid surface. Smearing: Mechanical removal of material from a surface, usually involving plastic shear deformation, and redeposition of the material as a thin layer on one or both surfaces. Solid impingement erosion: Progressive loss of original material from a solid surface due to continued exposure to impacts by solid particles. Solid lubricant: Any solid used as a powder or thin film on a surface to reduce friction and wear. Solid particle erosion: See solid impingement erosion. Sommerfeld Number: A dimensionless number that is used to characterize the state of lubrication of a bearing. (See Stribeck curve.) Spalling: A form of wear involving the separation of particles from a surface in the form of flakes as a result of repeated stressing, generally more extensive than pitting or a form of wear involving the separation of macroscopic particles from a surface in the form of flakes or chips, usually associated with rolling but may also result from impact. Specific wear rate: Wear volume divided by load and distance of sliding. (See wear factor.) Static friction: Friction associated with the initiation of motion. Stick-slip: A relaxation oscillation in friction, which is generally characterized by a sharp decrease, followed by a more gradual increase in the force of friction. It generally causes jerky-type motion and squeaking. Stiction: Term used to signify the condition in which the frictional resistance is sufficient to prevent macroscopic sliding. Stress fracture: See brittle fracture. Stribeck curve: A graph showing the relationship between the coefficient of friction for a journal bearing and the dimensionless Sommerfeld Number. There is a general correlation between this number and the different forms of lubrication with a liquid, boundary, mixed, and fluid. (See.) Surface distress: In bearings and gears damage to the contacting surfaces that occurs through intermittent solid contact involving some degree of sliding and surface fatigue.


Traction: The transmission of tangential stress across an interface. Traction coefficient: Ratio of the traction force to the normal force pressing the surfaces together. Traction Force: The tangential force transmitted across an interface. Transfer film: A tribofilm composed wear debris from the counterface. Tribochemistry: Chemistry dealing with interacting surfaces in relative motion. Tribofilm wear: Wear processes that are controlled by the formation of tribofilms, such as transfer and third-body films. Tribosystem: All those elements that affect friction and wear behavior. Thermal wear: Removal of material due to softening, melting, or evaporation during sliding, rolling, or impact. Thermoelastic instability: Sharp variation of local surface temperatures with passing of asperities leading to stationary or slowly moving hot spots of significant magnitude, resulting in local expansion and elevation of the surface. Third body: A solid interposed between two contacting surfaces. Third-body film: A tribofilm containing wear debris from the surface, generally a mixture of wear debris from both surfaces. Three-body abrasion: Abrasive wear when the abrasive particles are free to move. Two-body abrasion: Abrasive wear from protuberances or attached abrasive particles. Transfer: The process by which material from one sliding surface becomes attached to another surface, possibly as the result of interfacial adhesion. Transition diagram: A form of wear map, involving to or more experimental or operating parameters, which is used to indicate boundaries between different regimes of wear or surface damage or effectiveness of lubrication, such as the IRG Transition Diagrams. Vibratory cavitation: Cavitation caused by the pressure fluctuations within a liquid, induced by the vibrations of a solid surface immersed in the liquid. Wear: Damage to a solid surface, generally involving or leading to progressive loss of material, that is due to the relative motion between that surface and a contacting substance or substances. Wear coefficient: Normally defined as the non-dimensional coefficient, k, in the following equation, V ¼ KPS=3p, where V is the volume of wear, P is the load, S is the distance of sliding, and p is hardness. Less specific, it is the dimensionless form of a wear factor obtained dividing it by the hardness of the wearing material. Wear curve: Plot of wear as a function of usage, e.g., wear depth vs. sliding distance and wear volume vs. time. Wear factor: Constant in a linear wear equation, V ¼ KPS, where V is the volume of wear, P is the load, and S is the sliding distance. Wear volume divided by load and sliding distance. (Note: An alternative definition is based on the differential form of this equation, DV ¼ KPDS, where DV is the incremental increase in wear volume over an incremental amount of sliding, DS.) Wear-in: (See run-in.) Wear map: A graphical characterization of wear behavior in terms of independent operational parameters of the tribosystem, such as speed and load. Various forms of wear maps are used to identify ranges and combinations of operational parameters for different wear mechanisms, same wear rates, and acceptable operating conditions. (See transition diagram.)


Wedge formation: In sliding metals, the formation of a wedge or wedges of plastically sheared metal in local regions of interaction between sliding surfaces. Zero-wear: In the context of the Zero and Measurable Wear Models for sliding and impact, it describes a state of wear in which the wear or damage is less than the magnitude of the surface roughness.


Mechanical Wear Fundamentals and Testing

Mechanical Wear Fundamentals and Testing, Revised and Expanded

Mechanical Wear Fundamentals and Testing, Revised and Expanded

Mechanical Testing and Evaluation

Fundamentals of Friction and Wear

Mechanical Alloying: Fundamentals and Applications

Mechanical Alloying: Fundamentals and Applications

Plastics Fundamentals, Properties, and Testing

Fundamentals of mechanical vibrations

Fundamentals of Mechanical Vibration

Software Testing Fundamentals

Fundamentals of Robotic Mechanical Systems

Fundamentals of Robotic Mechanical Systems

Fundamentals of Robotic Mechanical Systems

A Guide to Wear Problems and Testing for Industry

Coatings Technology: Fundamentals, Testing, and Processing Techniques

Mnl 56 Guide to Friction, Wear and Erosion Testing

Mechanical Testing of Advanced Fibre Composites

Micro and Nano Mechanical Testing of Materials and Devices

Vibration Monitoring, Testing, and Instrumentation (Mechanical Engineering Series)

Modal Testing: Theory and Practice (Mechanical engineering research studies)

Mechanical testing methodology for ceramic design and reliability

Mechanical Reliability Improvement - Probability and Statistics for Experimental Testing Marcel

Mechanical Reliability Improvement: Probability and Statistics for Experimental Testing

Mechanical Testing of Bone and the Bone-Implant Interface

Lubrication Fundamentals, Second Edition (Dekker Mechanical Engineering)

The Fundamentals of Mixed Signal Testing

Microstructure and Wear of Materials

Fundamentals of Robotic Mechanical Systems: Theory, Methods, and Algorithms

Fundamentals of robotic mechanical systems: theory, methods, and algorithms

Fundamentals of robotic mechanical systems: theory, methods, and algorithms

Mechanical Wear Fundamentals and Testing